HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 4:29 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The average U.S. household already owns a house.

If home prices increases, then purchasing power increases, because the asset is already owned.

The supposed "housing crisis" is always being cited by people who don't live in these supposedly crisis-plagued markets. The people actually owning real estate are very happy, and are no more worried about a "housing crisis" than they are about a "401k crisis" as their assets grow.

Yes, there are fundamental issues when housing prices massively outstrip income gains, but housing is an investment, and investment gains are a very good thing for most. IMO the best thing is to provide subsidized rental housing in high-cost markets.
A lot of people don't own their home, especially the younger generations. Just because mom and dad might be able to sell their house for more in certain areas doesn't mean they're going to and why the hell would they? When all other options in your city also have prices raised your purchasing power doesn't increase at all unless you plan on moving to the midwest or if you're able to sell before the bubble pops, do you even know what you're talking about? Your little theory would make sense if there weren't constantly new people that need homes to live in, that's why it's a crisis. You say it's not a problem and yet think we need subsidized rental housing? you just contradicted yourself.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 4:51 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
A lot of people don't own their home, especially the younger generations. Just because mom and dad might be able to sell their house for more in certain areas doesn't mean they're going to and
why the hell would they?
You're right, of course. There are many people who are harmed when housing costs rise. But my point was that these "housing crisis" articles always ignore the fact that most people already own their homes, and any price increases benefit these folks.

Would you have rather bought the same housing in Metro Toronto or Metro Detroit 30 years ago? Obviously the Toronto purchase would have been a much more financially sound investment, even though Toronto has a supposed "housing crisis" and Detroit doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Your little theory would make sense if there weren't constantly new people that need homes to live in, that's why it's a crisis. You say it's not a problem and yet think we need subsidized rental housing? you just contradicted yourself.
I think there are serious issues when housing prices massively outstrip income/wealth gains but I also think it's overall more good than bad. More people benefit than are harmed when property prices rise. I would rather buy in the Bay Area right now than in Cleveland, even though the pundits tell me the Bay Area is in "crisis" and Cleveland is a "steal".

New people do need homes to live in, this much is true, but those new people will benefit from the price increases once they purchase, and will often fund their purchases based on the property gains from the previous generation. If parents/grandparents own a million dollar home, and the kids can't afford the market, it's likely the kids will realize the gains from parents/grandparents either through death/inheritance or through financial assistance.

I know a ton of thirty-somethings living in $1-$2 million apartments here in NYC, and I would say most don't have the income to support their home purchases. Yeah, there are a few working in finance, there's a dermatologist, there's a BigLaw partner. But there are also architects, social workers, govt. workers, nonprofit types, and they have $1.5 million 2 bedrooms. They are often cash buyers, or put down huge down payments, thanks to inheritances or Bank of Mom and Dad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 4:57 PM
Xing's Avatar
Xing Xing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 15,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
My point was that if they ever are to increase density (and there are calls here to do that), a high capacity, comprehensive public transit network is a prerequisite.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 7:23 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Putting the cart before the horse.

Where are you going to get the money to build a comprehensive subway line? You need the density first to collect enough tax revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 7:30 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
That doesn't say much. LA doesn't have a functional subway, so building along subway lines doesn't reduce traffic. The thing about a public transit network is you need a system that can be relied on >95% of the time for people without cars, or you have nothing. And LA is so spread out that it needs a longer network with more stations than either NYC or London.
Then we should allow more development along lines to concentrate more activity in their vicinity.

This is how Japanese cities do it:

Japan:


Europe:


USA:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 7:40 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
The US model often allows nodes of red and green outside the core. Also blue is getting denser in many places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 9:48 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,888
Home prices are totally unreasonable and out of control in the inner Bay Area:
Median Home Price, April 2016
San Francisco County $1,408,330
San Mateo County $1,312,500
Marin County $1,202,590
Santa Clara County $1,085,000
Alameda County $820,080
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 21, 2016, 11:55 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
You're right, of course. There are many people who are harmed when housing costs rise. But my point was that these "housing crisis" articles always ignore the fact that most people already own their homes, and any price increases benefit these folks.
Rising housing costs aren't good for homeowners either, if you buy in this current market you're guaranteed to have a diminishing return in your investment in the coming years unless you sell quickly while prices are still rising. The bay area can't keep rising forever, either the bubble will pop like it did in 08 or a loss of people/increase in housing options will make the market stabilize and decrease the price of properties in the future to what they're actually worth. It's great for people who owned homes in the Bay area for the last seven or eight years but they'll only see the benefit when they liquidate their investments, people who are actually living in their homes need another place to live, and if they plan on buying again in the bay area they're going to be facing the same inflated prices.

Quote:
Would you have rather bought the same housing in Metro Toronto or Metro Detroit 30 years ago? Obviously the Toronto purchase would have been a much more financially sound investment, even though Toronto has a supposed "housing crisis" and Detroit doesn't.
Metro Detroit?! For god's sake, do you even know a single thing about the market in metro Detroit? it's absolutely NOTHING like the city proper and it isn't any more or less stable than the market in metro Toronto, please don't pull out unrelated examples when you're not even aware of the stability that exists in those markets. Even if you bought within core areas within the Detroit city proper you would see a huge return on your investments because values have risen dramatically just in the past few years. Inventory in metro Detroit right now is extremely low so it's also a sellers market, only it's not as crazy extreme as it is in the Bay area. People are already being priced out of the city's downtown areas but geographically metro Detroit is massive and isn't restricted by a large bay surrounding it, there will always be affordable options somewhere in the city.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/rea...rena/83191622/

Quote:
I think there are serious issues when housing prices massively outstrip income/wealth gains but I also think it's overall more good than bad. More people benefit than are harmed when property prices rise. I would rather buy in the Bay Area right now than in Cleveland, even though the pundits tell me the Bay Area is in "crisis" and Cleveland is a "steal".
Then you would be making a mistake, you don't buy when prices are high. The Midwest has always had a better value for what you pay than the coastal cities, the Midwest markets are still cheap and steadily rising, that's why you're reading articles about it being wise to invest. Buying in the currently inflated Bay area market is not a smart decision, you'd be buying in a market that's nearly hitting a ceiling and has nowhere to go but down. Why do you think JP Morgan Chase just recently invested 100 million into the city of Detroit?

Quote:
New people do need homes to live in, this much is true, but those new people will benefit from the price increases once they purchase, and will often fund their purchases based on the property gains from the previous generation. If parents/grandparents own a million dollar home, and the kids can't afford the market, it's likely the kids will realize the gains from parents/grandparents either through death/inheritance or through financial assistance.
The children are likely living with their parents in the same home or renting, unless their parents die and they inherit and sell their home while still in a sellers market they're not going to see any benefit from inflated prices. I guess if parents of those living in San Fran don't die before the market falls they're shit out of luck.

Quote:
I know a ton of thirty-somethings living in $1-$2 million apartments here in NYC, and I would say most don't have the income to support their home purchases. Yeah, there are a few working in finance, there's a dermatologist, there's a BigLaw partner. But there are also architects, social workers, govt. workers, nonprofit types, and they have $1.5 million 2 bedrooms. They are often cash buyers, or put down huge down payments, thanks to inheritances or Bank of Mom and Dad.
Again you're focusing on a specific group that isn't the rule, it's great that those people come from well off families and are supported by their parents but that's not the case for most working millennials. How is this relevant to a diminishing middle class who can't find affordable homes to live in based on their incomes?
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!

Last edited by The North One; May 22, 2016 at 12:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 12:20 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think there are serious issues when housing prices massively outstrip income/wealth gains but I also think it's overall more good than bad. More people benefit than are harmed when property prices rise. I would rather buy in the Bay Area right now than in Cleveland, even though the pundits tell me the Bay Area is in "crisis" and Cleveland is a "steal".
This is just bad economics: never reason from a price change. You need to ask yourself why prices are moving in the directions that they are. In Cleveland prices have collapsed because demand has collapsed; nobody wants to live there because living in Cleveland is a miserable experience. But that doesn't imply that rising prices are a good thing and that falling prices are bad. In California rising prices are evidence of a huge artificial shortage of housing that has failed to keep up with strong demand, while in Tokyo falling prices are evidence of good governance allowing housing supply to grow fast enough to accommodate growing demand. The first option is a boon to landlords and current homeowners who get to sit back and siphon off scarcity rent from everybody else, but it's a pretty terrible equilibrium for society as a whole as it's just rent seeking. The second option is a boon to everybody.

That being said, you're right to question the wisdom of people who say buying a home in Cleveland is a good investment while a home in the Bay Area is a terrible one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 12:28 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Rising housing costs aren't good for homeowners either, if you buy in this current market you're guaranteed to have a diminishing return in your investment in the coming years unless you sell quickly while prices are still rising.
How is that possible? Are rising 401ks and rising pensions bad for people too?
How do you figure that rising housing prices mean diminishing returns? I don't get it.

If you own Apple stock, are you sad when the share price increases? When your salary increases, are you despondent? I'm not understanding how wealth gains are a negative for those receiving the gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
The bay area can't keep rising forever, either the bubble will pop like it did in 08 or a loss of people/increase in housing options will make the market stabilize and decrease the price of properties in the future to what they're actually worth.
Of course you're right, but that has nothing to do with anything. Detroit can't keep rising forever either. No market will rise forever. That doesn't mean the Bay Area is a poor long-term investment. It's like saying Tesla is a worse investment than Sears because Tesla is currently more valuable. Markets with solid price increases are less likely to have weaker future returns; that's kind of the whole point, and why people put their money in Manhattan and not Mississippi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
It's great for people who owned homes in the Bay area for the last seven or eight years but they'll only see the benefit when they liquidate their investments, people who are actually living in their homes need another place to live, and if they plan on buying again in the bay area they're going to be facing the same inflated prices.
Not true. People who own real estate can take reverse mortgages, they can take home equity loans, they can take second mortgages, they can rent, or they can move somewhere else. And they'll all die, eventually. In all these cases they're benefiting from their property gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Metro Detroit?! For god's sake, do you even know a single thing about the market in metro Detroit? it's absolutely NOTHING like the city proper and it isn't any more or less stable than the market in metro Toronto, please don't pull out unrelated examples when you're not even aware of the stability that exists in those markets.
I have no idea what any of this means.

Toronto has had strong price gains over the last 30 years, and Detroit hasn't. But according to you Detroit is a better investment. You haven't explained WHY Detroit is a better investment than Toronto. Both metros have gains over 30 years, but why is Detroit, in your estimation, a safer investment, because of slower growth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Then you would be making a mistake, you don't buy when prices are high.
What does that mean? What are "high" prices? There is no such thing. No one has any idea whether prices are "too high" or "too low" because they cannot predict the future. If you could do this with any accuracy you would be the wealthiest person on earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
The Midwest has always had a better value for what you pay than the coastal cities, the Midwest markets are still cheap and steadily rising, that's why you're reading articles about it being wise to invest.
But none of this is true. The Midwest actually has the worst real estate returns in the U.S. over the last 30 years. It has been the absolute worst place to park your money. That's exactly why it's relatively cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Buying in the currently inflated Bay area market is not a smart decision, you'd be buying in a market that's nearly hitting a ceiling and has nowhere to go but down.
There is no reason whatsoever to think the Bay Area market is "hitting a ceiling and has nowhere to go but down". That's based on absolutely nothing. The Bay Area may or may not be a good market, but there's no way of knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
The children are likely living with their parents in the same home or renting, unless their parents die and they inherit and sell their home while still in a sellers market they're not going to see any benefit from inflated prices.
I don't understand any of this. I don't know any adults living with their parents, and yet most people I know who own homes did so in part because of assistance from their parents. Millennials whose parents own in New York or California are passing on much greater resources than millennials whose parents own in Michigan or Ohio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
Again you're focusing on a specific group that is't the rule, it's great that those people come from well off families and are supported by their parents but that's not the case for most working millennials.
Working millennials don't have to buy real estate, and don't need to be in high cost markets. But millions of them do live in such places, and can afford nice homes. I work and live around them. I'm one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
How is this relevant to a diminishing middle class who can't find affordable homes to live in based on their incomes?
The middle class is diminishing largely because the upper class is growing. The lower class hasn't budged in decades. Obviously if people "can't find affordable homes" then prices will decline.

U.S. incomes are higher than almost anywhere, and U.S. home prices are fairly low for first world standards, so not getting why there would be some nationwide affordability problem. Look at income to home price ratios in the UK, in Germany, in Canada, in Japan, in Australia, in Hong Kong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 1:53 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
I never said Detroit was a BETTER investment than Toronto are you reading anything that I wrote? It's clear you don't have the slightest clue on what you're talking about and purposefully misconstrue points that are very obvious. If Detroit is such a hot topic for you how about you actually get a clue on the "gains" of the region: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...e-6-9-realcomp

I'm not going to write another essay to respond to all your points, it's not worth my time.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!

Last edited by The North One; May 22, 2016 at 2:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 2:19 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
... while in Tokyo falling prices are evidence of good governance allowing housing supply to grow fast enough to accommodate growing demand.
This doesn't tell the whole story though. The primary driver in Tokyo real estate prices falling is artificial inflation of the housing construction industry by the Japanese government.

Keitetsu horizontal champions like Sumitomo and Mitsui have massive cross-share holdings in the country's largest housing construction companies, such as Daiwa House and Sekisui. At both the holding company level and the entity level, housing and infrastructure contractors get sweet government subsidies, ranging from tax breaks to outright grants. Construction in Tokyo is outstripping overall demand.

Japanese commercial banks, each part of one of the keiretsu groups (there are six in total), in turn practically give residents money to buy houses; my current mortgage is a fixed 30 year 0.82% at 10% down. 0.82%!

This has created a tear-down culture, where houses in many cases less than 30 years old are torn down and replaced with brand new ones, financed almost for free. People who can afford to buy a house in Tokyo can also afford to build a new one of their own customization at essentially no extra cost. So With some very notable exceptions - there are quite a few neighborhoods in central Tokyo where housing has continually appreciated year over year since the end of WWII - housing here is like a luxury car in the US, depreciating 20% the moment you open the door for the first time with your new set of keys.

Real estate value is a function of the land itself - the house (or even the 30 story tower) is considered replaceable and not part of the valuation. So buy land in one of the central wards and within a 5 minute walk from a train or subway station: Chiyoda, Minato, Bunkyo, Meguro - these four wards see good returns. Edogawa or Koto? Not so much.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 4:28 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The average U.S. household already owns a house.

If home prices increases, then purchasing power increases, because the asset is already owned.

The supposed "housing crisis" is always being cited by people who don't live in these supposedly crisis-plagued markets. The people actually owning real estate are very happy, and are no more worried about a "housing crisis" than they are about a "401k crisis" as their assets grow.

Yes, there are fundamental issues when housing prices massively outstrip income gains, but housing is an investment, and investment gains are a very good thing for most. IMO the best thing is to provide subsidized rental housing in high-cost markets.
Unless you are young, or you seek to move somewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 22, 2016, 6:09 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
A lot of people don't own their home, especially the younger generations. Just because mom and dad might be able to sell their house for more in certain areas doesn't mean they're going to and why the hell would they? When all other options in your city also have prices raised your purchasing power doesn't increase at all unless you plan on moving to the midwest or if you're able to sell before the bubble pops, do you even know what you're talking about?
Unless record amounts of people are going to be foreclosing on their mortgages again I do not think we're going to have much of a bubble popping in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area until there is sufficient housing to meet the demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 23, 2016, 1:59 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
What does that mean? What are "high" prices? There is no such thing. No one has any idea whether prices are "too high" or "too low" because they cannot predict the future. If you could do this with any accuracy you would be the wealthiest person on earth.
Of course you can tell that. 5 million people live in the Detroit area, producing a US$ 240 billion GDP. How much their housing stock worth? How is it comparable to a similar sized area?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 23, 2016, 2:46 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Of course you can tell that. 5 million people live in the Detroit area, producing a US$ 240 billion GDP. How much their housing stock worth? How is it comparable to a similar sized area?
That has absolutely nothing to do with predicting future housing prices.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 23, 2016, 2:54 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
That has absolutely nothing to do with predicting future housing prices.
Well, if GDP per capita/income in Detroit area is only 20% below of a similar sized area, but its housing stock is 5, 10 times cheaper, that can tell you something, specially in a country like the US, very polycentric and where people tend to move around a lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 24, 2016, 6:23 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
This doesn't tell the whole story though. The primary driver in Tokyo real estate prices falling is artificial inflation of the housing construction industry by the Japanese government.

Keitetsu horizontal champions like Sumitomo and Mitsui have massive cross-share holdings in the country's largest housing construction companies, such as Daiwa House and Sekisui. At both the holding company level and the entity level, housing and infrastructure contractors get sweet government subsidies, ranging from tax breaks to outright grants. Construction in Tokyo is outstripping overall demand.

Japanese commercial banks, each part of one of the keiretsu groups (there are six in total), in turn practically give residents money to buy houses; my current mortgage is a fixed 30 year 0.82% at 10% down. 0.82%!

This has created a tear-down culture, where houses in many cases less than 30 years old are torn down and replaced with brand new ones, financed almost for free. People who can afford to buy a house in Tokyo can also afford to build a new one of their own customization at essentially no extra cost. So With some very notable exceptions - there are quite a few neighborhoods in central Tokyo where housing has continually appreciated year over year since the end of WWII - housing here is like a luxury car in the US, depreciating 20% the moment you open the door for the first time with your new set of keys.

Real estate value is a function of the land itself - the house (or even the 30 story tower) is considered replaceable and not part of the valuation. So buy land in one of the central wards and within a 5 minute walk from a train or subway station: Chiyoda, Minato, Bunkyo, Meguro - these four wards see good returns. Edogawa or Koto? Not so much.
I mean averages. I think you misunderstood me.

However, that Japanese homes depreciate is actually a sign of good governance as well. Structure are inherently depreciating assets that should be replaced. It's our development practices that are fucked up. When land prices go up in Japan residential investment increases to capitalize on the rise in demand. In the US restrictive regulations prevent this, which is why our cities are quickly becoming dominated by million dollar units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 24, 2016, 6:46 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
Well, if GDP per capita/income in Detroit area is only 20% below of a similar sized area, but its housing stock is 5, 10 times cheaper, that can tell you something, specially in a country like the US, very polycentric and where people tend to move around a lot.
Yes. It tells you that people don't want to live in Detroit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 25, 2016, 3:05 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California & Texas
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by dktshb View Post
Unless record amounts of people are going to be foreclosing on their mortgages again I do not think we're going to have much of a bubble popping in places like Los Angeles and the Bay Area until there is sufficient housing to meet the demand.
If the economy takes a hit and people cant afford those mortgages we could see another pop in housing.
__________________
'Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f*ck things up' - Barack Obama
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:07 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.