Ypsi Shovelgate: Meltdown Edition

For those of you not following the conversation that developed in the comments section after my last post on the Shovelgate controversy, a lot has happened. It’s really too much to cram into a single post, but here, as I understand it, is the gist of it.

348 people were sent bills from the Building Department for snow removal under the auspices of legislation recently rewritten by City Council. The plan, it would seem, came about as the result of genuinely good intentions. The City wanted sidewalks clear, especially in high-traffic areas, so that people weren’t forced to walk in the streets, where they could be harmed. Given the number of absentee landlords who own property in the City, and others who, in the past, had not complied with the rules, a decision was made to go to a new system under which, after a warning is made, a contractor would be brought in to clear the sidewalks of non-compliant property owners, billing them for said service. Sounds good, right?

Well, something went wrong in the execution. According to the Mayor, the way it was envisioned, the City Ordinance Officer was to walk a predetermined route which included the high-traffic areas previously decided upon by City Council. He was to do this at least 24 hours after a significant snowfall, posting warnings on the doors of those properties with as yet uncleared sidewalks. He was to also take a photo of said sidewalk section. Then, after another 24 hours, if the offending stretch of sidewalk still hadn’t been cleared, the private firm – A. M. Services – was to be contacted.

According to the Mayor, who left a comment here, 441 notices of warning were left, and, ultimately, 348 were cleared by the contracted company. Most of these, I believe, were billed to the property owners at the amount of $83, with $35 going to the private firm – A. M. Services – and $48 going to the City for administrative services. Assuming an average charge of $83 per property, that comes to almost $29,000. The company, in other words, took home about $12,000 for the day’s work. Not bad, right?

OK, so I posted something on my site saying 1) that while admittedly my sidewalk wasn’t perfect, I did shovel it, 2) I never received a warning, and 3) I never noticed that anyone other than myself had come along and improved upon my shoveling job. And, I filed a formal complaint with the City, asking to see a copy of the photo that, according to the Mayor, was taken of my property.

And other people from here in the City began leaving comments on the site identical to mine. Sure, there’s a chance that some of them are lying, but I suspect that many of them aren’t. What’s also interesting is that not one reader of this site has come forward to say that he or she had actually received a written warning. (The Mayor would later come back and say that the legislation only said that a warning “may” be given, but he’s said several times now that warnings were left at all of the properties.)

Then, yesterday, a lot of us who had complained got letters in the mail from the City saying that the charges against us had been dropped because photos were not taken of our sidewalks, as is outlined in the policy… In other words, they had no evidence to prove that we were delinquent in our neighborly duty.

So, where does this leave us?

A concerned member of the community just sent in the following note, asking me and others not come to Tuesday’s City Council meeting, and bring this up. Here, with his permission, is his letter:

What seems to me to be an appropriate action by the city at this point in “Shovelgate” would be to stop action on all aspects of this program including the fines, and payment to the private contractor until accounts of events by citizens, actions of the plowing company and statements of the appropriate city officials can be checked, compared and verified. When Councilpersons Robb and Murdock proposed this enforcement policy and city council passed it, everyone had good intentions. There has obviously been a problem with implementation. It has to be fixed, but first we must ascertain where the problem or problems occurred. That will take a bit of time. It appears from the postings of council member Robb and Mayor Schreiber that there is a willingness to pursue this for the citizens who feel they were wronged. Once again, this will take time.

Meanwhile there is the ongoing drama on the blogs. Going to city council meetings to complain will do little to change anything at this early stage and will result in everyone spending unproductive time on this since little can be done between now and the next city council meeting except trash the city as some on the blog are ramping up to do. The usual suspects. Citizens will be wasting the time of their own elected officials. Sueing the city where we live will only hurt our cash-strapped local government if it has to defend itself, and Ypsilanti citizens are the losers regardless of the outcome.

Certain people on the blogs seem to enjoy whipping up negative sentiment and that is their perogative. That is what they do. However, people who read the comments still have the option of acting in a thoughtful and logical fashion and doing it with the respect and courtesy that our part time, poorly paid council members and wonderful city employees deserve. It will take time to figure this out, but there is every assurance that a process will occur. My guess is that this process will result in better implementation of not only this ordinance enforcement activity, but others as well.

I’ll agree with the writer of this letter that bringing a lawsuit against the City for its role in this would be ridiculous, but I don’t see how going to Tuesday’s City Council meeting and asking for an explanation could possibly fall into the same category… I think, after having been dragged into this mess, it’s our right to have an explanation. More than that, I think it’s our duty to say something on the record so that this kind of nonsense doesn’t take place in the future.

So here’s my question to you, if I show up at City Council on Tuesday, and ask 1) whether any written warnings were actually left, 2) whether any photos were actually taken, and 3) whether anyone afterward went out to check and make sure that A. M. Services actually performed the work that they billed for, am I being an asshole?

This entry was posted in Ypsilanti and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Bill Laymann
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    No, you’re expressing freedon of speech. And anyone that tells you different is an *&$#(*&.

    And as far as whipping up negative sentiment; I was wronged, so were hundreds, and we have a right and obligation to vent. And stand up to what amounts to deception on a huge scale.

    As far as underpaid council; why did you run then? You should have admitted you were not up for the job. Or quit.

    This letter writer sounds scared. What reason would they have to not want us to come? It is one of our basic right and obligations to voice your opinions.

  2. Stella
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Seems like no one bringing it up publicly would be a potential, future, way for the city to brush off efforts to get real explanations . Perhaps the people attending for this purpose could have one person represent, who then states that they are speaking for X number of present citizens, so as to make it public record but also avoiding log jamming the meeting.
    In A2 the “community standards” police officers handle this. It’s done on a complaint driven basis, warnings are letter sized and taped to the door, one then has till 9 am the next morning to comply.
    It mostly works.
    If I sound like someone who has experience with this process, well…..

  3. Posted March 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    I don’t want to just go and complain. I’d like to go and offer some kind of solution. I’m just not sure what that would be… other than saying that the ordinance enforcement officer should leave written warnings, take photos, and check up on the work of those private entities doing the work.

    We need to take a comprehensive look at ordinance enforcement in the City. I’m not aware of anyone who likes how it’s handled now. I’ve never met the City’s ordinance enforcement officer, but I’d love to interview him for the site sometime.

    Maybe the answer is in the neighborhood associations. Maybe they should be in charge of scoping out their neighborhoods and making the officer aware of situations.

  4. Bill Laymann
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    What about the people I witnessed actually paying the fines?

    Will their money be returned?

  5. Brackinald Achery
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Shit, I’ve got good intentions too. You can’t argue with results.

  6. Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    I am probably going to go to the meeting although not so much to be heard as because I am very interested in hearing what the city is planning to do about this. I don’t think citizens attending a counsel meeting with valid concerns means that those citizens are assholes.

    The solution I would like to see is for the city to admit that they made a mistake. I also would like the enforcement department employees to learn from this experience. They need to take photographs because the burden of proof should be on the city. They need to give notifications before having a contractor remove the snow because that is what the ordinance requires.

    FWIW, I do feel that people can be forgiving of the city and city employees about this. It was the first time they were enforcing this ordinance. No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes now and then. I liked the suggestion of a commenter in the other item for there to be a “do-over”. The city needs to admit they were wrong, apologize to residents, waive the fines issues, and take steps to insure that this doesnt happen again.

    As for suing the city…I can appreciate why people don’t want others to take that step. But part of the reason citizens have the ability to sue when wronged is to give the city a strong disincentive for doing this sort of thing. It is kind of like how issuing tickets and fines is an incentive for shoveling. However, if the city takes steps to make this right, I would hope that anyone thinking of suing for time lost reconsider. I also would hope that if the city makes this right, citizens will stop calling for city employees to be fired over this. While I haven’t met anyone in the ordinance enforcement office or don’t think I have, I assume that they are human beings and thus can be allowed to make a mistake now and then. This situation isnt evidence of chronic problems with any city employees.

    I know that I have stated earlier that I was planning to pay the fine but now I think that I might appeal the thing because I know that no one removed any snow from my walk and it makes me mad to pay for work that wasnt done. I am hoping that I wont have to do anything and that the city will do the right thing. If not, then I guess I’ll go to the ordinance enforcement office and file a formal appeal. Are they in the same building as the fire department or are they over in city hall?

  7. Bill Laymann
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    “Sueing the city where we live will only hurt our cash-strapped local government if it has to defend itself”

    What about the hundreds that spent time defending themselves that were falsely accused. Are we all rich? Did we have nothing better to do this week? At least two hours per appeal, and the anxiety. Mulitpy that by 444.

    I have no plans to sue the city but thats flawed logic. If it happened to them they wouldn’t see it that way.

    Thank god it didn’t snow this week. Most of would have had to shovel as well as defend ourselves.

  8. Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    My concern is that the City may now owe $12K to A. M. Services. Having not read the contract, I wouldn’t know, but it seems reasonable enough to assume that there would be language to that effect. If we don’t have proof that they didn’t do the work, then I suspect we might have to pay them…. Because of that, my hope it that we don’t have to call a “do over.” My hope is that A. M. Services actually cleared some sidewalks, and some folks were deserving of the tickets. I don’t know how likely it is, but I’d like to think that the dozen or so people leaving comments here were the only ones out of the close to 350 that had legitimate reason to be upset. I guess we’ll know on Tuesday.

  9. Brackinald Achery
    Posted March 1, 2009 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Moral Hazard.

  10. roots
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 4:51 am | Permalink

    I like Stella’s suggestion: have one person represent/speak on behalf of many.

  11. nammeroo
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    The highly competent City Administration at work once again. Perhaps the Mayor will ask Mr. Koryzno to fork over a portion of his last raise to cover the $12,000 that the city is on the hook for now? After all, it is his ‘asleep-at-the-switch’ management style that is usually at the heart of these policy implementation messes that are so common from City Hall.

    In all likelihood, the next thing we’ll hear about is the lawsuit (not from residents but rather) from A.M. Services against the City for breach of contract. That would be par for the course in this town.

  12. tommy
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    This is a job for the Fox 2 Problem Solvers! Only half joking here. I would hope that a satisfactory response from the city will take care of this mess. If not, getting some news outlet to do some investigating would be an appropriate next step – especially if 12K was billed to the city and little proof exists that this amount of work was executed. Without these answers, the city opens itself up to questions such as: who owns and runs A.M. Services?, how they were chosen?, who’s pockets were lined?, why does Mark Maynard stir up shit on his website, knowing full well that A.M Services is a false flag operation that is secretly raising money for his daughter’s future college tuition costs? Well?

    Nice to see that your posts, Mark, now have a special color, you ego maniac

  13. Posted March 2, 2009 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    Re: “do-over” – There certainly were people who deserved to get a ticket. But most people will just pay the ticket because that is easier and if no one here either got a notice or had work done, there are almost certainly people who have simply paid who also had clear walks, got no notice, and had no work done. I get it that it is expensive but it would be wrong to force those people to pay just because they arent the types to raise a fuss.

    I wonder if it is public record who was cited? If it is the sort of thing that really appears on the assessment records, I imagine it is. If the city doesnt do right by people, I think it would be worth my time to get that list and write every one of them a letter explaining the situation and encouraging them to appeal. I don’t want the city to get away with this. Citizens, even the ones who aren’t always good about shoveling, deserve to be treated well by the city. We all deserve to have the ordinances enforced properly and fairly – not just the people who are likely to complain about it.

  14. Oliva
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Lynne, you asked where to go–it’s 3rd floor of City Hall.

    Also, even if at first some of us felt frustrated by being told our recourse was to appeal the charge (and blot on otherwise clean property records) and then if we weren’t happy with the result to appeal again to the city manager, I want to say that the mayor has been responsive and supportive in emails over the last few days. I also wonder if Brian R’s silence after a bit doesn’t suggest that he too has been working on our behalf to get things right. I can’t swear to it, but it’s a hunch. It’s peculiar that a concerned member of the community would urge us to stay away from the city council meeting tomorrow. The mayor and Brian, thankfully, have both encouraged us to attend.

    Finally, I read an interesting thing about nearby Superior Township:

    Superior Township Supervisor William McFarlane said his municipality has a part-time ordinance enforcement officer, who works about 10 hours a week. McFarlane said the ordinance officer supplies a report to the Township board once a month but mostly provides warnings to residents who are not in compliance.

    “The goal is to give people a chance to be successful,” he said.


    As we work to get the ordinance fixed, it’d be great if the people in charge of implementing it would approach the matter in this spirit.

    Randomly punishing people who have done what they’re supposed to do only weakens trust. The police have asked us to be extra-vigilant about crime in our neighborhoods, given that the department is already stretched too thin, but we shouldn’t have to be protecting one another from improper actions by the city.

  15. Oliva
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I’m sorry I failed to cite the source of that quote about Superior Township properly: “City cracking down on local snow removal, parked cars,” by Christine Laughren, Staff Writer, Ypsilanti Courier.

    Also, I wasn’t wishing to undercut out argument in appealing for a better spirit behind enforcement of the snow removal ordinance. I meant that even if photos had been taken, warnings given, or de-icing applied, it would still be nice to think that the city’s goal begins with a concern for residents’ well-being and couldn’t easily be confused with a system for making quick money or making well-meaning residents jump through (slippery) hoops.

  16. Paul Schreiber
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    Hello All,

    Please feel free to attend the March 3 city council meeting to express your concerns. I will ask council to move the city staff snow ordinance report up to presentations before the first audience participation so that audience members can comment on the report.

    Also, please allow me to correct a couple of misconceptions. First, the snow ordinance abatement began on January 30 and continued after the weekend. I don’t know when it was stopped, but I’m asking that question of city staff.

    Second, the snow abatement contractor is responsible for the cost of mistakes due to photography errors. (I mistakenly told Mark earlier that the city took photos when in fact the contractor is supposed to take a photo just before the abatement begins.) This and further information is available in the February 26 city staff report on the snow removal ordinance activities on pages 64 and 65 of the city council packet for the March 3 meeting.

    I hope to have your questions and my questions answered on March 3.

    Please feel free to call or email me if you have further comments.

    Best regards,
    Paul Schreiber

  17. Posted March 2, 2009 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Olivia, Thank you for the info about where to go. And thank you for your well worded and informative posts. I completely agree with you.

  18. Citizen Blogger
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    No, Mark, you would not be an asshole. It’s perfectly fair for you to go and say, hey, I was wrongly fined, and you agree with me, because you gave my money back. And thanks for that, but I want to know that next time I won’t be fined in the first place. Please figure out what went wrong, and fix it.

    I think you’d be wrong, though, to show up with Bill Laymann’s attitude that hundreds were wronged and that there was deception on a huge scale. I’d be shocked, myself, if hundreds of people were wrongly charged and just paid it because it was easier not to question it. Maybe they all just get paid a lot more than I do, but I think $83 is definitely worth making a phone call and writing a letter to appeal!

    Do you know that hundreds of people were wrongly fined? If you go before Council and say so, without any idea whether that’s true, then you’ll sound like a yahoo, and get written off. If you want meaningful action to be taken, stick to the stuff that you know is true: that you were fined, that it was wrong, that you’re disappointed with the city, and that you’d like something to happen to prevent it from happening again.

  19. ytown
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Has anybody read the agenda for the council meeting yet? It is complete CYA. They are trying to say that they completed the required work, however, if they didn’t they will dismiss the charge! They know they didn’t do the work. It is a joke!

  20. Posted March 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Citizen Blogger,

    That is why I am curious if it is public record who got fined. I know that $83 is a lot of money. In my case, the bill was $103 but even though I received no notice, my first inclination was to just pay it even though I never received any notification nor did I notice any work done.

    I have heard in business that for every 1 person who complains, there are 10 people who don’t complain but never return. Now, granted, it isnt very easy for anyone to just up and move out of the city. But I suspect that for every one person who has formally complained about this, there are multiples of that number who were wronged and didnt complain.

  21. Paw
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Has anyone confirmed that notices of non-shoveling or whatever reside in your assessment files and affect such things as the ability to take out lines of credit against your home?

  22. Matt
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Go to cityofypsilanti.com

    Click on tax and assessing in middle of page, then click building department search, put in owner name and enter, then click on parcel number.

    Mine is still there, I have requested it be removed or I will not consider this issue resolved.

    My experiance tells me a year or two from now a bill will appear. I have written a request to have it all removed.

    Make sure it is removed!

  23. Posted March 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Matt.

    That is a useful tool. FWIW, there is an incident on mine where I was cited for long grass and someone came out and mowed it so I paid the fine. It lists it as expired. I assume that means that the matter is closed. I know that it never prevented me from taking out a line of credit on the house because I refinanced my mortgage after that time. So I guess I wouldnt worry too much about such a thing being listed on one’s “permanent record.”

    Another thing I checked, using that tool, is if the property next door to mine which has *never* been shoveled (except once or twice by me), was given a ticket or abatement this time around. They were not. There is no way a city employee could have possibly found ice on my walk and not noticed the snow on the walk next door. So I find that a bit annoying.

  24. Matt
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Thats one reason this was such an outrage. It appears that people were randomly selected. There sure was no logic involved.

    I have the same situation. My neighbor and I shovel, the rentals across the street do not. Guess who received invoices?

    Its really ridiculous.

    It may not be “permanent record” but as long as its there, it says you owe.

  25. Oliva
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Lynne, re. the others on your block, Ann Arbor figured out a way toward greater fairness:

    If any citizen has a concern regarding sidewalk snow removal 24 hours after the end of an accumulation greater than one inch, Community Standards is ready to help. Citizens may call (734) 994-1788 (M-F, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) to report locations which may be in violation of the city snow removal ordinance. When calling, citizens should be prepared to leave their name and number in case staff requires additional information. Caller’s names and numbers are kept in strict confidence, and are only used to process service requests. Upon reports of non-compliance, we will perform an inspection of the reported address. If the inspection reveals a violation, we will then inspect all addresses within the “100 block” (i.e., addresses 100 numbers apart such as 2300 to 2400) to ensure equitable treatment. Each address in violation will receive a “Sidewalk Snow Removal Notice” which is posted on the front door of the property. The notice gives the resident or property owner 24 hours to correct the situation and it also includes the Community Standards Office at (734) 994-1788 so that people may call with questions. Special circumstances may be considered which may result in an increase in the amount of time allowed to bring a sidewalk into compliance. If, upon re-inspection, the necessary action has not been taken, the city may clear the sidewalk and bill the property owner. (Boldface added)

    Knowing some of the people who clear their sidewalks every time and were charged–and all the properties that weren’t cited that regularly have unshoveled sidewalks–could it be that someone just closed his or her eyes and picked random addresses to send fines to (and forgot to give the information to the contractor, whose work wouldn’t have been needed anyway)?

    Actually, I think we all want to believe that this was an innocent mistake–but so many details strain credulity. Humility and honesty about now would be nice. A blunder is one thing, and we could all practice forgiveness–along Curt’s do-over idea from youth. The ongoing CYA stuff just makes it worse and insults people’s intelligence.

  26. Mark H.
    Posted March 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    One of the most disturbing aspects of this whole Shovelgate episode, to me, as a resident who was not fined, is that it appears the Mayor made a number of statements defending what was done prior to finding out what was actually done. The default position of defending all actions of city staff and managers is disturbing. It’s the kind of Rumsfieldian management style that got the city into the Water Street fiasco. Facts don’t matter in this managerial framework, at least not until they are proven beyond doubt. That the mayor is now willing to hear citizen complaints at Council — which he could not of course have stopped anyway – hardly mitigates against his previous excuse-making for the horrific way this new policy was implemented.

    The intent of this new policy is fine with me; but there’s a world of difference between what was intended and what was done. That the mayor and the city manager have not been able to come up with a factual explanation for this major screw up is in itself an indictment of their abilities. The operative word here seems to be “fraud” – work was billed for that was not done; and whatever city staff – which ultimately means the city manager — is supposed to be sure that the compliance officer and the contractor actually did what they claim to have done – appear to have failed to provide this essential oversight or supervision. That is the very definition of mismanagement! And yet their first reaction was that all is well, nothing wrong was done…..

    Relying on the mayor and the city manager to examine & explain how this happened is, at this point, the equivalent of relying on the ultimate author of the problem to explain why the problem occurred in the first place.

    Yes, CYA. SNAFU.

    And with this harsh comment, I do not mean to disparage the fine and capable people who work for the city. But the root of the problem is at the top. The Mayor will never admit this, because he totally depends on the manager, who is the….main author of the city’s gross mismanagement.

  27. Posted March 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    It sounds like Ann Arbor has a good policy there.

  28. Posted March 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    Interesting results so far:

  29. Kristen Cuhran
    Posted March 3, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    “Maybe the answer is in the neighborhood associations. Maybe they should be in charge of scoping out their neighborhoods and making the officer aware of situations.”

    I agree Mark. I’m the secretary of the Midtown Neighborhood Association and I can attest that we’ve had conversations about these types of issues for years. Our solution (and one that has yet to come to fruition-I can take most of the blame for that!) is to write a letter on our MNA letterhead (pretty much a form letter but tailored to the specific complaint- snow removal, grass length, trash in yard, etc) and send/give it to the owner. Our idea is that the first letter will be kind “we’d like to make you aware of…” or “it has come to our attention that you lawn has not been cut for xx amount of time. Please take care of this matter promptly, in order to maintain our neighborhoods beauty and integrity”. Something of that nature.

    THEN on the next round of walking (we encourage neighbors to walk our neighborhood) the person who sent the initial letter to the owner could see if anything had been done in a reasonable amount of time. If not, they get a second letter stating that they have X amount of days to correct the matter or we are submitting a complaint with the City to fine them.

    I have no idea if we’d take pictures (I think it is a good idea but one would have to have a camera, etc), how this would work with the city’s need for documentation, if people did fix the problem if they would get a congratulatory letter or thumbs up somehow… etc. SO- that’s the idea. It is not all worked out yet, but I really like trying to work things out and giving people the chance to do better as the first step.


  30. Oliva
    Posted March 3, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Sounds good and reasonable, Kristen–much more in the spirit of what we want our city to be, even if extra work falls to neighborhood associations (well worth it).

    The deputy city attorney might be able to clue us in about privacy rights and photographing people’s property. According to the city council packet for today’s meeting, he looked into the matter on 17 Feb.

  31. degutails
    Posted March 3, 2009 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    as an aside, my son walks home from school every day, and he heard about shovelgate, and his first response was “thank god! it’s really difficult to walk after there’s been a snowfall.” he’s really glad that the city is doing something to help the situation.

    so if you shoveled your walk, great, but if you didn’t, do it. if you get fined by the city, remember that it makes our city safer for pedestrians to keep the sidewalks clear.


  32. Posted March 3, 2009 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    I attended the City Council meeting tonight and have blogged about it on my blog.


  33. Posted March 3, 2009 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    I bet a lot of these bozos who “shoveled” and got fined are going to shovel a hell of a lot harder from now on.

    Pay your money, pick up a shovel next time, and shut up.

  34. Bill Kilgore
    Posted March 3, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have to pay because the city had no evidence of any sort they did anything. Because they didn’t do anything. Dude, you can pay for me if you like them so much. You probably like giving your money away, cause you sound like an idiot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Carrie Banner