HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southeast > Atlanta


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:31 PM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
Thank God for eminent domain and governments who think roads are a good way to be civilized...
Heh. I assume that's a tongue in cheek observation, no?


Just as side note, I was talking to a traffic engineer recently and he made the comment that he wished there was as much asphalt in Atlanta to work with as there is in other large cities.

I said, "You must be kidding!", but he adamantly maintained that Atlanta had far fewer roads that most cities of its size. As I've thought more about other cities I've lived in and visited and looked around at the situation here, I believe he's right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 6:46 PM
AubieTurtle's Avatar
AubieTurtle AubieTurtle is offline
Peace and Pizza
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downtown Atlanta
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
Thank God for eminent domain and governments who think roads are a good way to be civilized...
I'm sure the folks who lived in Buttermilk Bottom and were forced out of their homes and had their community extingished so that we could have a big ditch filled with asphalt (wow, what an engineering marvel, having only been done a couple thousand other times across the country) where their homes use to be would have a different view on what is civilized. Afterall, we can't let human beings stand in the way of the automobile and the convenience of people who are a bit richer than people such as those from communities like Buttermilk Bottom. Those associated "urban renewal" projects that came along with the connector to rid the city of "those people" sure was civilized.
__________________
'Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle'

Last edited by AubieTurtle; Dec 16, 2006 at 7:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 10:04 PM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Aubie, I was just reading an excellent article the other day about what happened in Buttermilk Bottom. My granddaddy was supervisor of the Pine Street garage for the old Atlanta Transit Company, and there was a place he used to love to go for lunch over there, which looked sort of like the spot in the painting below.

http://www.washingtoninformer.com/NA...m2006Dec7.html

If any of you ever get a chance to chat with James Malone, who's referenced in the article, do take advantage of it. He's full of fascinating stories of Atlanta from another age. And he's quite an extraordinary artist, too:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 10:47 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
No no, Aubie is right. We shouldn't build roads at all. We should never use eminent domain and we shouldn't have interstates, rails, or powerlines for that matter. Someday, some company would have put together enough capital to connect all of our cities by high speed road so someday we would have a functioning country where people, not to mention, perishable goods can move around. Someday even, we'd be able to enjoy fresh oranges in New York or perhaps defend the Midwest from those dammed Mexican invasion forces and their lightning strikes. Maybe we'll even someday put enough land together to build an airport big enough to have those awesome jetliners like those other countries. One can only dream of a world without eminent domain. One where we are on the cusp of escaping being a third world nation.

Sorry, just because there were wrongs done in the past doesn't mean that we should tear up our infrastructure like it would put the neighborhoods back where they were. Nor does it mean we should never build roads or highways on people's properties again. There are certain things as well that will never be profitable but are essential and need to be taken care of by the government and eminent domain.

A civilized nation isn't subject to the pure anarchy of perfect capitalism. Civilization implies that there are forces working for the greater good of the nation as a whole. We all give up something (taxes, property, labor) and in return we get all the things we take for granted everyday. Eminent domain doesn't run your house over while you sleep at night, it compensates you for your loss and corruption has little to do with the process itself, it has to do with the people in charge. If you don't want black communities to vanish under eminent domain, don't vote for people who want it or run for office yourself.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; Dec 16, 2006 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 11:01 PM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
No no, Aubie is right. We shouldn't build roads at all. We should never use eminent domain and we shouldn't have interstates, rails, or powerlines for that matter.
dante, why such an extreme reaction? No one has suggested that we should never build roads at all. What Aubie's talking about is the abuse of eminent domain to build roads of dubious value in the middle of cities, and the way this has often been used by racist and classist forces to run roughshod over vibrant, viable neighborhoods. The fate of Buttermilk Bottom is a well known case in point.

There's certainly a place for good roads, but the lessons of the past teach us that ramming superhighways through the heart of established cities is a formula for urban disaster. And it's often the poor and people of color who pay the heaviest price.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 11:47 PM
whoDean whoDean is offline
Novice RealEstate Magnate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 341
Reality lies somewhere between Aubie and Dante's extremes. Transportation in general and road/highways in particular are indeed a big part of why Atlanta grew as a city, but there is definitely a point of diminished return (where the region clearly has arrived).
__________________
ATL Booster
Location: Buckhead Atlanta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 11:54 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Well, eminent domain brings about more good than harm is my point. I don't really see how Atlanta could function without highways inside the perimeter and I think, one way or the other, they became necessary. I think that eventually we will need to use it again inside the core as well and I think it rightfully should. I don't want to come off as uncaring of course and I'm not. I just don't think that cities should stay stagnant because they are already built up.

If Atlanta wanted to become the regional job center, it needed a way for people to get to the core that was better than surface streets. A "superhighway" is the most accessible form of high speed transportation. Anyone with a car can get from anywhere into downtown.

Does not eminent domain compensate people for the value of their homes and more? Can it not be done in a way with minimal negative social impact if planned properly?

I will save an argument about what we should do about the state of lower-income neighborhoods for another thread and another time... I will note that I think that they should not remain homogeneous or isolated so that they are easily ignored. i will also say that an Atlanta without superhighways through the core would be one devoid of development and interest as, among other things, no one from the outside would have to confront its problems.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2006, 11:59 PM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoDean View Post
Reality lies somewhere between Aubie and Dante's extremes. Transportation in general and road/highways in particular are indeed a big part of why Atlanta grew as a city, but there is definitely a point of diminished return (where the region clearly has arrived).
Sorry to be extreme heh. Don't confuse my responses to Aubie with the actual spectrum of my views. For some reason he is curiously able to troll me... Basically my views have been that nothing of urban transportation is all good and all bad and most things are necessary. We should therefore work toward minimalizing the negative impacts of those necessary things without get rid of everything all together.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; Dec 17, 2006 at 12:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 12:18 AM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
If Atlanta wanted to become the regional job center, it needed a way for people to get to the core that was better than surface streets. A "superhighway" is the most accessible form of high speed transportation. Anyone with a car can get from anywhere into downtown.
The interstates that slice through downtown became a way for people to flee from the core of the city. Today they are primarily used as a means for suburbanites to pass through the city on their way from one suburb to another.

We're not a city where most of the jobs are centered in downtown, or where vast numbers of people need to commute in. If the objective had simply been to get workers to intown jobs, a good network of surface streets would have sufficed perfectly well. Not only that, they would more than likely have elected to live intown. Lord knows we have plenty of land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 12:35 AM
dante2308's Avatar
dante2308 dante2308 is offline
Man of Many Statistics
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Atlanta/Jamaica/S. Florida
Posts: 1,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea View Post
The interstates that slice through downtown became a way for people to flee from the core of the city. Today they are primarily used as a means for suburbanites to pass through the city on their way from one suburb to another.

We're not a city where most of the jobs are centered in downtown, or where vast numbers of people need to commute in. If the objective had simply been to get workers to intown jobs, a good network of surface streets would have sufficed perfectly well. Not only that, they would more than likely have elected to live intown. Lord knows we have plenty of land.
Andrea, surface streets cannot handle millions getting in town from as much as 50 miles away. There are over one million jobs in the city of Atlanta which qualifies as a large number.

It is also true that people fled the cities, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have a right to. If the city was as desirable as the suburbs, people wouldn't have left. That they did means that there were deep seeded social and economic problems plaguing cities nationwide. No matter the affect, 5.2 million people weren't going to fit inside the core of Atlanta and even if we had New York style density, we would need highways to interconnect the extremes of the city.

Also, I don't agree that the connector is primarily used to move from one suburb to another. That assumes that midtown, downtown, and people traveling through do not contribute a large percentage of the traffic. It is well established that Atlanta's daytime population is well above it's nighttime population and that excess comes from commuters. Surface streets lose their effectiveness when you commute on the scale of Atlanta and with the road structure of Atlanta. I think a true metropolitan area is one where people from all communities within are able to efficiently travel it's expanse and make use of all resources the city has to offer. That means, with a 11,500 square mile city, that people in a particularly attractive neighborhood should be able to watch a Braves game or not have to move if their job is transferred from one part of the city to another. Maybe, in the future, in-town living will offer the benefits of suburban living, but until we reach some form of equity, we need to cater to all the transportation needs of the city.
__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Last edited by dante2308; Dec 17, 2006 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 5:14 AM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308 View Post
Andrea, surface streets cannot handle millions getting in town from as much as 50 miles away. There are over one million jobs in the city of Atlanta which qualifies as a large number.
Dante, no offense intended but it's ridiculous to suggest that there are millions of people flooding into the city of Atlanta from distant towns. The entire city of Atlanta has less than 20% of the metro area's jobs, and many (if not most) of those jobs are not downtown. About 75% of people in the metro area commute from one suburb to another.

Those are just the facts. I don't think it can be seriously argued that a good, well-designed network of surface streets would not be totally adequate to handle intown traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 2:09 PM
john3eblover's Avatar
john3eblover john3eblover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,318
there are no where near 1,000,000 jobs in the city of atlanta...
__________________
Hudson-Photography
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 3:17 PM
MarketsWork MarketsWork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea View Post
I don't think it can be seriously argued that a good, well-designed network of surface streets would not be totally adequate to handle intown traffic.
"Adequate" for whom? And by whose definition -- a core dweller with little need to move around, or others in the region who require frequent mobility throughout the area? In the late 1950s, Birmingham's airport was adequate, while Atlanta's was superior. Atlanta also built a superior freeway system which took advantage of its intersection of three major interstates, and which accomodated its incredible growth. "Adequate" did not build the greater city.

Only superhighways can provide the kind of mobility needed to allow easy mobility to everyone throughout the Atlanta region. Good, well-planned surface streets are vitally important, both by themselves and to complement freeway traffic. But for a city this large and populous, freeways are superior to to surface streets for traversing the entire city.

If you're really agruing that the Downtown Connector should have been built a mile to the east or west of where it sits, that is another matter altogether. But Atlanta would not have grown to the point it has without its incredible hub-and-spoke freeway system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 3:45 PM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3eblover View Post
there are no where near 1,000,000 jobs in the city of atlanta...
The ARC says there are about 450,000 jobs within the city limits of Atlanta, which is a little less than 20% of all jobs in the metro area.

Of course these 450,000 jobs are not all downtown. Many are in employment centers spread out along the Peachtree corridor such as Midtown and Buckhead. Many people work at the Airport or in the city's warehouse/industrial zones. Lots of folks work from home or in restaurants, colleges, shops and smaller commercial businesses around town. A number of major employers (MARTA, the school board and city government) by definition have their employees scattered all over the city.

And obviously many of the 450,000 jobs within the city are performed by people who already live inside the city limits, so only a portion of these jobs are filled by commuters. The vast majority of Atlanta commuters (3 out of 4) are simply traveling from suburb to suburb.

The point I'm getting at is that cities like Atlanta don't need massive freeways tearing through their central urban areas. The concept of hordes of commuters pouring into work in a central downtown simply doesn't apply here. Atlanta is something of an extreme case but the same trends are apparent in many U.S. cities.

The negative effect on our cities of these gargantuan concrete gulches we call expressways cannot be overstated. They destroy connectivity. They form absolute physical barriers within the urban fabric that can only be penetrated at a handful of locations. They take up vast amounts of land which would be otherwise available for parks, homes, businesses and other development. They eradicate streams and forests. They bring severe air pollution and the non-stop 24/7 roar of automobiles.

Even worse, the burden of expressways is grossly misplaced. Although their detrimental effects fall on the city, they exist primarily to serve commuters whose destination is not the city at all, but who are merely passing through on their way from one suburb to another.

If there were ever reasons for expressways inside the city limits, they certainly do not exist now. They are unncessary and enormously destructive. Given the limited amount of employment inside the city and its diffuse nature, we'd be much better off with:

(1) a first class public transportation inside the city, with more numerous and more accessible stops. Light rail would be great but modern BRT would be better than nothing;

(2) a well-designed system of surface streets, with more numerous and efficient connections, intersections, and controls; and

(3) carefully planned and integrated pedestrian and bike access.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 3:49 PM
AtlMidtowner's Avatar
AtlMidtowner AtlMidtowner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Penthouse in Midtown, Atlanta
Posts: 344
Atlanta JOBs and commutes into Atlanta and transportation projects

During the nightime, Atlanta's population is about 470,000. During the daytime, it swells to almost 900,000. (As an Atlanta resident, I pay for the suburbanites to piss in our sewers)

350,000 vehicles are on the connectior each day.

It doesnt take a genius to figure out that most of the traffic going to downtown is for jobs in the city limits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there werent interstates going into Midtown, I wouldnt live in Midtown. I have commercial rental properties (office buildings) in Marietta, Norcross and Riverdale, and can get to all of them within 20 to 30 minutes. I would take over an hour or more to get to my building in NOrcross via Peachtree Road, Peachtree Industrial and then Jimmy Carter. Anyone that thinks the interstates in Atlanta have been beneficial in promoting growth and economic stability is.......Of course some people dont want growth (even though they werent even born in Atlanta...kind of hypocritical...just remember, in Atlanta, every day is an opening day....ie growth)

The simple fact is that metro Atlanta is growing from 70,000 to 100k people per year. Of course some people will be displaced, and displaced homes will almost always be of lower income. That will happen intown, as well as in the suburbs. I just looked at $950k houses in North Fulton where the city of Milton will be and noticed the rural farmers and rural people that are being displaced and having their way of life totally changed by Atlanta growth. So what.......
I live on 14th Street and cant wait till the ugly 40's and 50's style apartments are finally torn down on 13th, 12th and 11th Street. I literally had a rifle slug shot into my penthouse condo last new years coming from that ugly grey house on 12th street (the source derived from angling the hole in the window with a hole in the sheetrock inside of my bedroom and the police did nothing, and I live 370 feet above ground level!!!!!!!!!) There are also shady things going on in the pink brick aparment building on 13th!!
Of course development will change the character of neighborhoods, and for Midtown, that is clearly a good thing, even though many lower income people have been displaced from Midtown in the last 15 years. I remember in 1991 the first time I lived in Atlanta, I was literrally afraid of 10th Street at night. Now I will walk from 14th Street to the Spire on Peachtree without too much concern, although I wouldnt recommend walking on Spring!

Just remember, the original neighborhoods in Atlanta belonged to the Cherokee Indians!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Cherokees are the only ones I feel any guilt for changing the neighborhoods in Atlanta for development.

I also have a mixed feeling about public transportation. The population is far too sparse in Atlanta to be able to have a succesful public transportation system. In fact, in all of the USA, with very few exceptions, there is always a natural barrier such as water or mountains that force higher density and allow public transportation to succesfully operate. I had read an article that made the point that Paris has 12 times the density of Atlanta and in order for a subway system to have the same coverage, Atlanta would neet 2800 subway stations, which is obviously absurd.

Projects such as the Beltway rail could be beneficial, if the city allows very dense population within walking distance of the stations. Atlanta already failed with Mason and the Piedmont Park development, just because of a handful of people in Virginia Highlands and Morningside dont want their neighborhood changed.......hey 25 years ago, Virginia Highlands was lower income and lower middle class and 300 years ago it belonged to the Cherokees......
Building light rail up GA 400, I75, I85 would be very expensive initially, but if those counties allow high density near the stations, then a whole new market is created and these rails may proove to be beneficial economically, traffic-wise and envivornmentally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 4:00 PM
AtlMidtowner's Avatar
AtlMidtowner AtlMidtowner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Penthouse in Midtown, Atlanta
Posts: 344
city of Atlanta is more than just downtown

Andrea,
The city of Atlanta is more than just the downtown area, as you just pointed out yourself, and the highways dont just have exit ramps in the downtown area. Geesh, without the highways, YOU WOULD NOT SEE THE MIDTOWN BOOM and without GA 400, I would doubt you would have the Buckhead boom around GA 400 right now. Downtown and Midtown would be barren and low income areas without easy access. I live in Midtown, and I get caught in traffic on the interstates and surface streets in the suburbs, but rarely in Midtown. Even when the downtown connector appears clogged, and the traffic slows to 25 mph, that is not actually a long delay when you calculate the time and the distance!!!!!! People just are psychologically stressed when they see 14 lanes of traffic full, but they dont actually calculate how little time they are actually losing.

Whereever you build a interstate in ATlanta, you WILL have massive growth. If the northern arc had been built, Atlanta would be experiencing massive construction in growth even further north.....of course you may not want that.

I would agree that most commuting is from suburb to suburb, but the commuters DO NOT cross from north to south of I-20, with very few acceptions. MOst airline workers live south of the airport (Fayetteville, Peachtree City aka Delta city, Henry county,etc not north of the airport!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 5:24 PM
Andrea Andrea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,912
Rob, I appreciate what you're saying but you're missing my point, which is probably my fault.

First let me address a few factual issues:

- 25 years ago, Virginia Highland (no "s", sorry to be so old-fashioned) was not lower income or lower middle class. I lived there, and while it wasn't quite as yuppified as it is today, it was pretty close. That's really neither here nor there, except for the fact intown neighborhoods don't need freeways to be vibrant and thriving.

- Atlanta's daytime population is more like 675,000 than 900,000. http://www.census.gov/population/soc...2000/tab01.xls

A more detailed analysis indicates that around 250,000 people a day commute into the city of Atlanta. As we both agree, many of those commuters are widely scattered all over the city, rather than all being concentrated downtown. http://apps89.brookings.edu:89/livin...ommuting23.xls

- Yes, metro Atlanta is growing from 70,000 to 100k people per year, but the vast majority of those people (probably 95% or more) are moving to the burbs, not into the city itself. And most of those people are commuting from one suburb to another. So if they want freeways to do that, then those freeways should be placed in the suburbs where their burden falls on the folks who primarily use them.


Here's what I'm really getting at. I'm not opposed to expressways -- perhaps they are great for suburbia, but they aren't appropriate in urban areas. Within the city, we could easily accomplish our transportation goals through a first class system of surface streets and public transportation.

Let the massive freeways begin at some point outside of the central urban fabric. People who wish to leave the city would be able to easily access those freeways via surface streets or public transportation. People coming in from the outlying areas could likewise travel by freeway through their own suburbs, and then transfer to an efficient system of streets and public transportation once they get to the city. I'm simply saying we should keep the freeways outside of the central urban areas. For the reasons I mentioned above, it's unfair and unnecessary to have these massive concrete gulches carving through the middle of the city itself.

I'm glad it's easy for you personally to zip out to Norcross or Riverdale, but frankly -- and I mean no offense whatsoever -- that hardly justifies the enormous destruction that the downtown connector has wreaked upon the city of Atlanta. With a first class system of city streets, you could just as easily navigate to a point outside the urban core, and then pick up the freeway at its suburban point of origin and proceed on to your destination.

As everyone knows, it's a significant misnomer to refer to the downtown connector as an "expressway" in the first place. The reality is that it's virtually an impenetrable mess for 2-3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours again in the afternoon during so-called "rush hour." All of us who've endured that nightmare for years can readily see that a large portion of the traffic has nothing whatsoever to do with downtown -- it's suburbanites passing through.

I've always lived inside the city limits of Atlanta, and there isn't one single place within the city for which I need a freeway. I'd certainly like to see better intersections, more connectivity, better designed surface streets, and more options for non-automobile transportation. But I don't need freeways slicing up my city.

Atlanta has boomed in spite of the freeways, not because of them. There's a place for these mega limited access roads, but it's not in the middle of our established urban areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 5:34 PM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Very well stated, Andrea. DC is a fairly good example of this. They pretty much kept the freeways from within the core, especially the District itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 6:40 PM
Fiorenza's Avatar
Fiorenza Fiorenza is offline
Reliable Source
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,551
European cities also don't run autobahns through the center, but this ain't Europe!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2006, 6:46 PM
MarketsWork MarketsWork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaguy View Post
DC is a fairly good example of this. They pretty much kept the freeways from within the core, especially the District itself.
Yes, and DC had a virtual carte blanche with federal funding to build its extensive Metro. As the nation's capital and a federal district, DC is a unique case, and its gravy train cannot be repeated to anywhere near the same degree in any other young city.
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 > Regional Sections > United States > Southeast > Atlanta
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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