Special Report: Pan Am

Amid Denials, Questions Remain Over Political Interference

While Mayor Eisenberger parses words over whether the Province made an offer to support the East Mountain, the question remains: why were higher levels of government trying to influence the city's decision?

By Ryan McGreal
Published August 23, 2010

Mayor Fred Eisenberger has issued a statement denying that he received a monetary offer from the Province to make the East Mountain Pan Am stadium location viable for the city.

Two weeks ago, Mayoral candidate Larry Di Ianni claimed he had heard from "impeccable sources" that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty offered money to develop the West Harbour if the City voted to locate Pan Am stadium at the East Mountain, the site preferred by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

At the time, Eisenberger flatly denied the allegation, stating that had an offer been made, he would have brought it to Council.

That story changed on the weekend with a front-page article by columnist Andrew Dreschel in Saturday's paper in which the Mayor acknowledged that the Premier's office had, in fact, contacted him when the Federal Government announced that it would only fund an East Mountain stadium, but had not offered any specifics.

The suggestion of assistance came earlier this month during a phone call with Premier Dalton McGuinty's office, informing Eisenberger that the province was tagging along with the federal government and would only fund a stadium on the east Mountain, the site preferred by the Tiger-Cats.

Eisenberger says he was also told during that "quick and shocking" conversation that the city now needed to start thinking about what it needed to make that work.

"We didn't get into any specifics," Eisenberger recalls.

He says he reiterated that the city wants a light-rail system and mentioned other projects that are already in the provincial funding queue.

No commitments were made, says Eisenberger. No dollar figures were tossed around.

He says the phone call ended with the premier's proxy saying the province had fiscal restraints, but they would get back to him to talk about the city's needs.

The next day, after a major uproar, the Federal Government reversed its position and clarified that its funding commitment was "not contingent on the location of the stadium."

In a terse statement issued yesterday, Eisenberger reiterated, "At no time has the Premier or his designate made an offer, financial or otherwise, to make the East Mountain stadium location viable for the City of Hamilton ... to assist the City of Hamilton in developing the West Harbour site ... [or] to accelerate other major city projects in need of provincial funding in order to advance such projects."

The statement concludes, "Any suggestion to the contrary is inaccurate, false and misleading."

Background Manipulation?

This situation raises embarrassing questions about why Eisenberger didn't mention the call sooner and actively denied Di Ianni's claim that the Province had intervened. It's a weak reconciliation to admit that a call was made but insist that there was no specific offer and hence nothing to report.

In fairness, it appears Eisenberger asked the Province to come back with something more concrete, but that follow-up never happened once Ottawa backtracked from its insistence on the East Mountain location. However, he still ends up looking like he shielded Council from information that would have influenced their decision.

But the biggest unanswered questions remain:

  1. Just what was going on in the background to cause the Federal Government to announce, using Provincial MPPs Ted McMeekin and Sofia Aggelonitis as mouthpieces, that its funding was contingent on the East Mountain; and

  2. Why did the Province go along with this to the extent of offering some form of assistance, before both levels backed down in the face of massive public outrage?

It's likely these questions, which lie at the heart of this tangled political skein, will get lost in the inevitable recriminations over why Eisenberger didn't disclose the call to Council - not to mention what role Di Ianni may have played in the background, given his circumspection over the stadium location and his ties to the Ticats.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

45 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 08:30:13

Let's be frank, a doomed west harbour stadium is a big win for DiIanni. After he and his advisor Eric Cunningham both previously said they support the west harbour, now he's putting as much distance as he can and undermining the city's current leadership so he has a better shot at winning. Real grassroots there Larry. Same old same old.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By meddler (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:15:29

Hamilton isn't the only place the Ontario Liberals are meddling.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontomayoralrace/article/850753--liberals-scramble-to-help-george-smitherman-stop-rob-ford

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:22:34

I can see why Mayor Fred didn't tell council about the call at the time because presumably, any potential assistance for the downtown from the higher levels of government (vague as it was) disappeared the next day when they backtracked on their EM only stand. Not to mention it would be one more vague rumour clouding the true debate.

But what I don't understand, is why he denied the claim when Dianni called him out? Especially when he knows Dianni and Cunningham are in tight with the provincial Liberals and probably knew about the call. That's just a dumb move politically.

To be honest this whole thing is like a tempest in a teapot, all it proves is that rather than debating the merits of the stadium locations the ones in charge would rather play politics and further divide this city for shallow political gain.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lorne (registered) - website | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:33:10

The two questions you pose at the end of this article are excellent. The fact that no one on council is asking them suggests a fear of embarrassing the Province, on which Hamilton is so dependent for that yearly infusion of millions they seek to keep the tax hikes low. The lesson: civic integrity can be bought for about $12.5 million.

Why The Hamilton Spectator and other media refuse to do some digging is much harder to answer.

It has been obvious to me from the beginning that the 'story' we were told by the McGuinty Government cannot be true, i.e., that a single phone call from a private citizen, Ian Troop, relaying a message from the Federal Government, prompted the Province to withdraw its support for the West Harbour. Such an assertion is an insult to our intelligence. The Federal Government's subsequent denial of such a call served only to compound the insult.

Their actions are a clear indication of what they expect from the voting public: apathy and/or acceptance of any tale they choose to spin. What it says about their mouthpieces, Ted McMeekin and Sophia Aggelonitis, I'll leave for others to decide.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By synxer (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:35:51

I am certain that the Mayor was receiving countless phone calls and details in every direction, some concrete, others not so much. If the details were vague and nothing was put on the table, there isn't anything to talk about in my opinion.

The only Mayor in my lifetime that has had any progressive direction whatsoever is about to be in a heated array of distractions -- and it's election time.

I wouldn't trade Dianni or 20+ years of Bob Morrow Mayoral-ship for this red herring.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:47:35

What really jumps out at me in this whole never-ending fiasco is that you have, on the one side, a broad coalition of diverse community and economic stakeholders who have evaluated the issue on its merits and come to what I regard as a sound conclusion based on clear evidence.

On the other side, you have a narrow coterie of interests who have engaged from the start in a sneaky, secretive and disingenuous campaign to distort, subvert, and co-opt the process (with its attendant tens of millions in public funding); and when they couldn't succeed at that, are now apparently trying to sabotage it entirely.

I realize this is an uncharitable conclusion to draw, but after more than a month of shameless throw-everything-and-hope-something-sticks politicking, I really can't see any other conclusion that fits the evidence.

It just appalls me that what should be a cause for celebration has turned into an epic snafu.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-08-23 08:49:06

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By birdie (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 09:50:59

Don't forget Clr Clark's Aberdeen sideshow last week. They're nothing if not shameless.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted August 23, 2010 at 10:00:59

As I write this, I'm listening to Bill Kelly rant and attack Mayor Eisenberger. He uses Brad Clark as his moral compass! Personally, I like my "pastors" to be a little more credible than Brad.

Why this story is focused on Fred is remarkable. The Premier (because senior aides don't call on their own behalf) tried to buy the vote, this after saying he wanted this to be a local decision. I guess Fred kept his word, and did not reveal the existence of the call, as I suspect he was asked to do. Because others didn't, now Fred is reviled as a manipulator. Talk about spin.

We should be outraged that the Premier tried to do an end run on citizens who spoke out and supported the progressive decision - the West Harbour. Fred's not the bad guy here. The Mighty Dolton needs to receive a few emails. As does our new Revenue Minister and Dolton cheerleader, Sophia Aggelonitis. They're hanging Fred out to dry. I'm worried people are buying it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sbwoodside (registered) - website | Posted August 23, 2010 at 11:15:00

Yes, it does appear that there is a concerted campaign going on right now to (a) discredit the decision to go with the West Harbour and then (b) blame this manufactured "failure" on the mayor.

Going back in time, if the mayor had revealed that he was called, what would have happened? Who knows. It could have delayed the vote, it could have triggered more government denials, or it could have had no effect at all.

So yes, it could have changed the outcome, because there was so much chaos, every day something changed, who knows what would have happened.

I think at this point it's best to move on.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 11:38:32

The Mayor has responded with an official statement: http://www.mayorfred.ca/posts/view/184

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 11:46:05

Here's a question that no one seems to be asking:

Who informed Di Ianni of the call and why?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 12:57:08

Who informed Di Ianni of the call and why? - Brandon

FTW!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 13:32:48

Wait for the provincial response before passing judgement!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By loveforever (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 13:41:30

All I see here is some politicians trying to play their tricks to please business people about the stadium location, they did not care about our Hamiltonians voices who know what is best for our city future.

We should think "GREEN" for future developments.

Bravo to our Mayor: Fred and the counsellors who voted to support the West Harbour !

Comment edited by loveforever on 2010-08-23 12:44:37

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 13:48:29

It's a sad fact that mayors are "bought" and "made". Bought because whoever has the most money can launch a more effective campaign, while buying followers who will take every opportunity to smear and ridicule the opposition. Made because the media has tremendous influence on who and what gets air time, and manipulate perceptions subtley with their pieces and articles.

If we sit back and let "democracy" do it's work, we'll probably end up with DiIanni. Anyone who doesn't want that better find the most progressive candidate who stands a chance of defeating DiIanni and start showing some support.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 14:39:08

From a previous post -

This whole thing smacks of a setup by the likes of DiIanni, Cunningham and the Purple Mafia (pro-development Conservatives who dress like Liberals) Think about it. DiIanni was spouting off about this "offer" weeks ago although he was quoting millions. How did he know? Dreschel's just selling newspapers as usual. In truth, any "offer" became moot the next day when the feds backtracked anyway. Without something in writing what was Eisenberger supposed to say? He'd be accused by the WH side of tipping the balance without having anything to back it up. Don't forget, when the province announced that the feds would only fund an EM stadium but had nothing in writing, the feds denied ever saying it. Eisenberger would have been in the same boat and could easily have been hung out to dry.

The saddest part of this is that it's all predicated on the mistaken belief that somehow a stadium in a location that will further decimate our downtown and eliminate the possibilty of LRT is OK if it's cheaper. When will we learn that every time property values in the downtown go down, everybody else's taxes go up. Every time we take potential tax-paying land like that on the east mountain and turn it into publicly-owned land we shrink the tax base and everybody's taxes go up. Every time we take employment land out of the mix we cause somebody's kid to have to look elswhere for a job.

Of course, none of this matters to Bob Young or to those who are so incredibly shallow that they think all our community has going for it is a football team and whose greatest concern is that they might have to extricate their fat ass from their car. They'll never understand that, as Mayor Eisenberger said, we're not just building a stadium, we're building a city.

p.s. Q - Who was the Mayor when Hamilton's bid for the Commonwealth Games featured a West Harbour stadium? A - Larry DiIanni

Mr. Leadership must have a short memory. Let's hope the voters don't.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frustrated Hamiltonian (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 16:41:52

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Headshake (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 16:48:34

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 16:57:31

So you're suggesting that he should have given in to what was essentially provincial blackmail? It was up to the council to decide, not the provincial government and not the federal government and they had no business making the phone call in the first place.

Kudos to the mayor for not bringing an "offer" with no money attached to it to the council. The offer likely wouldn't have had anything behind it anyway the next day as the province stepped back from its arm twisting.

As far as blaming Di Ianni, don't you think it's a good question as to how he got the information in the first place?

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-08-23 15:58:39

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 17:02:06

everyone needs to keep in mind that the Mayor himself said at the Hess Village rally that he is receiving 'new information almost hourly'.

Is he supposed to have a 24/7 conference call open with all councillors and update them every hour on the province's attempts to hijack our local planning and their attempts to dictate where OUR stadium should go merely for their own political gain??

Bob Bratina also said the same thing at the rally - "the info is changing hourly". At the end of the day council did the right thing and stuck to their guns.
Be very wary of any of them who are registered or affiliated with the Liberal Party. It's the Media, the Mafia and the Party Machine all over again (note: another Liberal-friendly voice at CHML these days.....)

Some of us care about Hamilton. Many of 'them' care about their party. Don't buy their nonsense. Keep our city number one in this whole discussion.

Every Hamiltonian should read this book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Their-Town-Mafia-Me...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 18:50:00

Just caught Ryan McGreal on CH news, great job! Not used to hearing that much sense on TV. Also someone needs to buy Herman Turkstra a double espresso.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod K (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 18:51:02

Listen to this interview from CHML. The announcer seems sooooo disappointed that the Mac professor does not make a big deal out of this...

http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1268100

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 23, 2010 at 20:11:25

Every Hamiltonian should read this book

I heartily endorse this statement.

My feelings about the conservative party aside (and lets be realistic, Fred is conservative), the role of the Liberal Party in this town is really ugly. I've spent enough time in electoral politics to know that (I first met Fred over beers at an NDP event). I'll take integrity over ideology any day. And while he may be a bit blue, but he's also pretty green.

Don't be fooled by DiIanni and his federal/provincial chums. He's been courted as a candidate by these people recently enough. There is absolutely nothing grassroots about the guy - you can't claim to be "fighting for the people" while you have a cozy relationship with higher levels of government.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 20:17:09

Good job Ryan McGreal on CH news Live at 5:30! I wish you had more time though to speak about the issues. Finally got a chance to see this Mr Turkster fellow. He reminded me of Einstein's slightly disgruntled brother. Just saying.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anonymous (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 22:28:29

Hey, at least if DiIanni gets in, it will further justify the hiring of the Integrity Commissioner. He's certainly keep him busy.

I would love to know, who informed Larry.........it stinks. Fred has his problems but he is no DiIanni. Makes me sick. Can't shoot Fred for sticking to his guns and convictions. Just imagine the crap you would have heard if it were Larry in power. Would have been the East Mountain for sure.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 23:09:10

Fred Eisenberger took a position on what he thinks is best for our City.

Way back, when Hamilton was bidding for the Commonwwealth Games, Larry DiIanni took the same position.

Now there's an election on and he steadfastly refuses to take a position.

Being a convicted crook is shameful but being unable to decide something which you've already decided is embarrassing.

If this is leadership, we could do with less of it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DejaVu (anonymous) | Posted August 23, 2010 at 23:10:04

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Headshake (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 00:08:23

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 00:08:56

Some top-drawer fanboy slobber toward the end. Precious stuff.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5440961545675359654#

What is it with HESC anyway? Brad Clark and Larry DiIanni both came out of that box as peeved as polecats after having their dreams of higher office deflated.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 00:20:00

BTW, did anyone catch the Jim Coyle column in Monday's Star?

Weekend poll from Ipsos Reid apparently shows the Liberals in freefall, and Hudak whupping McGuinty in every leadership category. Two thirds of those surveyed said the province is headed in thge wrong direction, and not surprisingly, almost as many said they felt it was time for another party to govern.

Maybe the most notable in the midst of all this heat and dust is the finding that 56% of Ontarians surveyed felt that McGuinty had a "hidden agenda", while just 24% felt that Hudak did.

Zeitgeist?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 08:31:32

Fred unfortunately the people of Ontario had a short memory last election. It's amazing what you can get away with these days in politics.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By birdie (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 08:39:45

Everything I don't like about the Liberals is even more so about the Conservatives.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mike (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 08:59:37

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattJ (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 09:07:37

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 24, 2010 at 09:54:29

And if that highway hadn't been built this wouldn't be an issue.

That environmental assessment, by the way, was legally mandated. DiIanni and his chums used a loophole so that the highway (construction beginning in 2003) only had to live up to laws from the 1980s. Then DiIanni handed away another massive pile of public money suing everyone in sight in a round of lawsuits which still have yet to bear a single monetary fruit. The only thing it accomplished was handing all this cash to Gowlings Lafleur Henderson (now just "Gowlings"), the country's biggest law firm, which by the way is connected with the Liberal party.

We could do a lot worse than Fred. We could even do a lot worse than Michael Baldasaro. And that would be Larry.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 10:46:07

I seem to recall the likes of DiIanni extolling the contention that the purpose of the Red Hill Expressway was to open up "employment lands". Remember? It wasn't to increase the value of his speculating friends' land at public expense, it just looked that way. (check out who owned most of the land up there, you'll be amazed)

Unless you're a hot dog vendor or a ticket-taker and only need to work on game day, I'm not seeing a lot of real jobs or even "spinoffs" being generated by a stadium in a wheatfield. Put it downtown where there are hotels, restaurants and bars that we can walk to and save the taxpaying, job-producing land for real entrepreneurs from the private sector who want to spend their own money not taxpayers'.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ORC lands? (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 13:30:47

Dianni likely is using his failing liberal contacts to try and gather dirt rather than make a stand himself.

regarding why the interference, I do not know but doesn't ORC (Ontario Realty corporation which is run by the provincial governemtn) own the east mountain land or at least they did and likely own nearby land anyway if I remember correctly. Just wondering if that had something to do with it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattJ (anonymous) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 13:40:57

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 14:25:14

MattJ said "I think your jealous because you don't have the wit or balls to do something like that youself. Try moving out of your parents' basement and start doing something productive."

Ahh, the personal attack, the last refuge of someone who can't enunciate a compelling argument. If you're (yes, that's how "you're" is spelled) going to throw anonymous, unfounded insults at people, please, get some original material. This line has been used numerous times before on this site and is just sooo tired.

By the way, is Mark Chamberlain, the multi-millionaire who favours the West Harbour, still living in HIS parents' basement or is he just someone else with whom you couldn't win an argument?

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-24 13:26:21

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 16:39:26

"Mike", that's offensive nonsense. I'm a small business owner and lawyer who has been involved in more developments and job creation initiatives than you can shake a stick at. For you to come by here trolling and accusing pro-West Harbour supporters, or Raise The Hammer's community, of trying to destroy the city is pure garbage. Go crawl back under the rock you came from.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 16:41:22

One more time on the comment system : registered users see all the comments. Nothing is deleted. Comments that are not profane, that do not attack the site or specific individuals, are very rarely downvoted past the limit. I certainly never do so.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted August 24, 2010 at 16:57:13

In response to "ORC lands", yes a large part (if not all) of the proposed East Mountain site is owned by ORC and in fact the East Mountain site was proposed privately to Michael Fenn the facilitator (remember there was no public input to those discussions) during the original impasse.

The obvious idea was to line ORC pockets with the City's Future Fund money, which would also vastly increase the value of the ORC's lands surrounding the proposed EM facility. The ORC, as most of you will be remember, is currently being investigated by the OPP for what appears to be a massive kickback-and-fraud scheme involving "irregular financial transactions". The ORC was previously involved in a massive fraud and bid-rigging scheme a few years ago as well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted August 24, 2010 at 18:59:25

registered users see all the comments.

All users can see all the comments. Comments are hidden by default for anonymous users if the comment score is -5 or lower; but the comment becomes visible with one click.

The only comments that are being strongly downvoted are rude, insulting, ad hominem attacks. Respectful disagreements are not being downvoted.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 22:46:11

I was asking on another thread a few weeks ago, "Who owns that land on East mountain?"
(If anybody cared to find out, I'm sure they could @ City Hall. I haven't a clue what the tax roll number or the address is for the property in question. That would make the search very difficult.)

Maybe i missed it in media reports, but it is normally reported who currently owns the property, the exact location, etc. when something like this is proposed.(Or is this just another super dooper secret 'Hamilton Thang'?)

At least if ORC lands are close neighbours of that site, we might make a few assumptions about 'Why' the Liberals seemed to favour East Mountain. I wonder exactly How close-? Is it possible that it is an ORC owned property?

This interference & meddling is getting to be A Bit MUCH!

(It's too bad David Miller won't run again in Toronto. Polls show that he would win.
'Can't wait to see what the Ont. Libs have up their sleeves when the Hamilton Mayoralty race starts in real earnest. They are obviously trying to discredit Fred already.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bolwerama (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 08:32:33

^They are obviously trying to discredit Fred already." As if Fred needs any help with this!!!

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds