Special Report: Casino

Downtown Casino Still Not a Bet Worth Taking

Despite yesterday's vote, we may well end up having to watch Council panic in 2014 and chase its losses, with another municipal election coming and enormous pressure to make a fear-based decision.

By Ryan McGreal
Published February 15, 2013

After a marathon debating session yesterday, Councillors voted unanimously on a compromise motion that establishes Flamborough as the only location for a new casino in Hamilton - but that Council will consider other locations if there are no acceptable bids for Flamborough.

The motion was led by Councillor Sam Merulla, whose opposition to a downtown casino has been early, strong and consistent. Merulla, along with Councillors Judi Partridge, Jason Farr, Brian McHattie, Rob Pasuta and Bernie Morelli, have all staked out clear positions and defended them resolutely.

McHattie went so far as to argue that Council should consider not keeping a casino at all, but no one else wanted to have that conversation since the City currently depends on $4.5 million a year in revenue sharing from the slots at Flamboro Downs.

On the other hand, no member of council was willing to stake a formal position in favour of a downtown casino. The closest was Councillor Terry Whitehead, whose commentary unquestionably favoured a downtown casino but who nevertheless insisted that he had not made up his mind.

Mayor Bratina has also sounded at times like he supported a downtown location, but overall he said little over the course of the months-long discussion and exerted almost no influence on how Council's position unfolded.

The rest of Council has remained on the fence, and that is ultimately the position that carried yesterday's vote. While Merulla manged to get his vote in favour of a Flamborough-only casino location, it was only by agreeing to an escape clause big enough to race a stable of horses through.

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp (OLG) has an opportunity to define the request for proposals such that no Flamborough bid can meet its requirements. That means there's still plenty of opportunity for Council to bolt from the course they set yesterday.

Unfortunately, this means we may well end up having to watch Council panic in 2014 and chase its losses, with another municipal election coming and enormous pressure to make a decision based on fear of losing the slot revenue.

Many Moving Parts

Years ago, I had a friend who played for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. He told me the players used to joke that CFL stood for "Can't F---ing Lose", because with three downs it is much harder for the winning team to run out the clock.

As a result, dramatic shifts in fortune can transform a game at any time, right down to the last play. It makes for exciting football.

Over the past several years I have often mused that Hamilton politics is no different. Big issues remain in play until the bitter end, and even seemingly guaranteed outcomes can shift suddenly as the various players jockey relentlessly for advantage. (Perhaps ironically, this was most evident in the Great Stadium Debate, where the dramatic reversals came on an almost daily basis.)

In the casino issue, there are still far too many moving parts to be able to predict an eventual outcome.

Have no doubt that intense back-channel lobbying is going on right now by a variety of parties with competing interests. In the machinations to come, Council would do well to remember that it has leverage as well as exposure.

Polarizing Debate

It scarcely needs to be pointed out that the downtown casino debate has been extremely polarizing. People I respect and admire have taken positions on both sides of the issue, and the discussions have been extremely heated.

In too many instances it has gotten ugly, with individuals on both sides leveling nasty personal attacks against each other instead of sticking to the issues.

That's deeply unfortunate, because eventually this debate will be over one way or the other, but we will all still have to live in the same city and find ways to work together.

Evidence-Based Decision

I stayed quiet about the casino issue for a long time because I was struggling to make up my mind about it.

On a few occasions, local news media have contacted me about making statements on the issue or participating in panel discussions. I declined every offer: I did not consider myself informed enough to speak on the matter, and in any case I wasn't sure what I had to say.

I did eventually form a conclusion after studying the evidence carefully. The social harm argument carried significant weight with me, but what really decided me was the economic argument, which of course includes the social costs.

When you net it all out, a downtown casino in a city that is not already a major tourist destination is mathematically guaranteed to take more money out of the local economy than it puts into it.

It's easy to point to this or that city as an example of any outcome you like, but an evidence-based approach must consider the whole set of examples to discover a median or modal case that represents the most likely outcome for Hamilton. Otherwise you're just cherry-picking.

Again, the full weight of evidence indicates that a downtown casino will do some good and some harm, but that when you net it out, the overall harm will be greater. In light of this, my thinking has solidified over the past couple of months.

When I first heard about the proposal of a downtown casino, my initial reaction was, "Hey, why not?" As Bill Maher argues, governments should not be in the business of legislating taste ('I think casinos are yucky so they should be illegal') and I think people should have the freedom to seek their entertainment however they want.

However, because the casino strategy is coming from OLG, and because the model is to locate casinos close to local populations to offset shrinking revenues in tourism gambling, and because the Ontario government has given itself a monopoly on issuing casino licences, this becomes an issue of public policy.

A Bet Not Worth Taking

I don't begrudge anyone for forming a different conclusion than I have - or to remain neutral, as a lot of people have done - and there have been a lot of spurious arguments on both sides.

It's entirely possible that my conclusion is wrong, and that a casino in downtown Hamilton would be a positive addition. My best guess at this point is that at least directly, it would have a modest negative impact - i.e. neither as good as its proponents claim nor as bad as its opponents warn.

However, social/economic change is rarely linear, and big transformations can happen on the margins.

The equation for private investment in downtown Hamilton seems to have shifted just enough over the past several years that a number of impressive developments are now going ahead. The marginal cost of a new downtown casino only has to nudge the equation very slightly in the other direction to forestall that progress.

In other words, we're looking at a very small maximum upside balanced against a very large maximum downside. That's rarely a bet worth taking.

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.

39 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By J (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 13:44:12

"a downtown casino in a city that is not already a major tourist destination is mathematically guaranteed to take more money out of the local economy than it puts into it."

I've heard this argument before and am not sure it's 'evidence-based' at all. The issue is whether the dollars leaving are already leaving - if so then there's no issue. If gamblers would be spending their money otherwise on vacations to Cuba then more of the money will be staying in the city. If they are spending it at Toronto Maple Leafs games then more is staying in the city. If they're spending it at Montana's before a film at the Cineplex, then I have no idea but assume it's pretty neutral. If they're spending it at Lo Presti's before a show at the Casbah then more money is leaving the city. But I've yet to see any evidence on this.

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:17:32 in reply to Comment 86363

When the city itself is only pocketing 5% of what is lost at the casino, I personally think it's disingenouus to say you're "not sure" dollars are leaving the city. At 5% retention I think it's fairly safe to say money IS leaving the city, the only issue is, how much.

If the city was getting closer to 20%, then I might agree with you and say "it's not clear".

Don't forget that problem gamblers, who make up a significant portion of gambling revenue, don't just spend their "entertainment" income on a casino instead of going elsewhere. They spend their emergency cash, retirement money, healthcare money, food money, mortgage their house, etc.

Arguably that's getting more money into the economy, but it's not something I would ever advocate because it's likely to turn them to social assistance in the long run (and cost us money again).

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 15, 2013 at 13:55:46 in reply to Comment 86363

The evidence is that a casino in a non-tourist location diverts money from the existing aggregate entertainment budget, meaning money that might otherwise have gone to restaurants, clubs and other activities go into the casino instead. From there, a large share of the money goes to the Province and some of the rest goes to whatever corporation runs the casino (which will not be a local company, since OLG rules are that the casino operator must have experience operating a casino).

Permalink | Context

By J (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:27:02 in reply to Comment 86364

that doesn't get to my point - does the 'aggregate entertainment budget' right now actually go to the local venues? If casinos draw more people to spend their money there than would otherwise go outside then it's money coming in, not going out.

Robert D, you also didn't address that point, but I do agree that problem gamblers are a different story as they're not converting just their entertainment dollars. This is definitely a concern of mine.

Permalink | Context

By J (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:34:10 in reply to Comment 86370

The thing I'm describing is called "import replacement": retaining resources that would otherwise be spent outside the community.

Dr Atif Kubursi, 'The Social and Economic Impacts of a Permanent Casino':

"The net economic impacts after factoring the effects of redirected expenditures and import replacement would include: • A total of $1,979,083 will be the amount lost at the Casino that could have been spent on groceries. • $4,947,708 could have been spent on clothing. • The sum of these two items of redirected expenditures is $6,926,791. The associated impacts of these expenditures are subtracted from the total impacts. These include: • $5,008,360 reduction in income. A loss of 111 person-years of employment.

On the other hand, we have added to the total impacts the following:

• An import replacement which amounts to $7,916,332. The impacts associated with the import replacement expenditures are higher than the negative redirected expenditures. The net impact results are, therefore, higher than the gross impacts.

Permalink | Context

By LindsayG (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 11:07:18 in reply to Comment 86372

Here's the thing, though...Dr Kuburski himself says on this issue that the existing models for calculating the economic impact of casinos - one of which he created - are unable to capture the economic cost of the social problems created by the casino, which are real, and high, but very difficult and complicated to capture economically. One example he gave if a casino contributes to a suicide, the economy loses all the productive working years of that person's life. But how do you capture that in the economic model? You can't.

Permalink | Context

By J (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 18:20:37 in reply to Comment 86402

That's also my biggest concern about the casino. I'm not yet persuaded by the economic argument.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 13:57:16

This CBC Hamilton article addresses varying opinions on the economic effects of casinos on established urban areas (at a very high level). I would suggest investigating the work referred to in the article.

In short, a McMaster economist believes:

it could have a negative impact on the larger Hamilton economy. [Prof. Holmes] said that many people who visit casinos are from a lower income bracket, and they wind up spending their disposable income there instead of at local businesses.

While a researcher hired by the gaming industry says:

There really isn’t a cannibalism effect on local businesses...

For me, it just comes down to credibility. One voice is a professional paid by the industry to pump the benefits of casinos, the other is a local academic with no direct interest in the project.

Comment edited by Borrelli on 2013-02-15 13:57:53

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:14:43

Thats why there is 200,000,000 a year being spent by Hamiltoiains a year out in Niagara and Brantford ,why could we not keep it in Hamilton becose we don`t have what the Mercanties whant to build

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:24:59 in reply to Comment 86366

Do you have a source for your claim that Hamiltonians spend $200 million a year in Niagara and Brantford? I can't find anything to corroborate that.

Permalink | Context

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:30:50 in reply to Comment 86369

Did you whatch yesterdays meeting when asking Norm he said with cards they have at Casinos they tell Hamilton spends 128,000,000 and thats not counting pls playing with Cash money can be way over 200 million

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 14:56:58 in reply to Comment 86371

Then closing Brantford and Niagara casinos would leave most of that $200m in Hamilton?

Permalink | Context

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 19, 2013 at 13:32:47 in reply to Comment 86373

most of it

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 15:12:55

Will never happend they make too much money

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 20:20:09

honestly, I'll flip if another election is hijacked by a dumb issue like this. When do we actually get around to city-building and moving Hamilton into the 21st Century.

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Which city looks like it belongs in the 21st Century, and which one is lovin the 50's? http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/16...

I elect politicians to lead us into a prosperous future, not bicker over non-essentials like stadiums and casinos.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 18, 2013 at 09:20:45 in reply to Comment 86382

How fitting that you reference not only an article that you wrote but also a fired city planner who has a history of butting heads with council and developers and businesses.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted February 18, 2013 at 09:40:06 in reply to Comment 86432

A planner who buts heads with council and developers? You've convinced me to watch him.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 21:12:48 in reply to Comment 86382

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 jason (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 10:21:21 in reply to Comment 86385

'complain'? Wanting my city to invest in things that will actually move us into a competitive 21st century is now considered complaining??

Let's use two of my favourite cities as an example: Portland and Vancouver.

Vancouver has a pro football team and a downtown casino and is constantly ranked one of the top cities in the world to live in. http://www.houstontomorrow.org/images/up...

Portland has no pro football team and no casino and is constantly ranked as a top livable city with a booming downtown core and urban/inner city neighbourhoods. http://tucsonvelo.com/wp-content/uploads...

Why? Because both have focused intently on the things that matter in developing a successful urban economy. We always spend crazy amounts of energy on the things that don't matter, while allowing the status quo of unsafe streets, 'retail' districts that are completely hostile to retail and a dangerous lower city for children to be raised in to continue.

Let's get our city working right, and then worry about extras.
Like the expert pointed out in the video I posted above from Vancouver - 'we design our streets and neighbourhoods to be safe for kids....if they're safe for kids, they're safe for everyone else'. Here we design our urban neighbourhoods for trucks and speeding cars. And the difference in quality of life and of the local/urban economy shows it.

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 10:55:38 in reply to Comment 86398

Sooooo, what are you saying?? Vancouver with it's pro football and casino is higher on the list than Portland without the two. Ok, build the casino and lets move on. Shouldn't bend over again for the minority like we did with the stadium. 100,000 people in Hamilton hold casino cards which means they are leaving our city for casino's elsewhere. Not to mention they are spending in those towns as well (dining, shows, etc.). When are we going to enter the real world?

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 08:05:50 in reply to Comment 86385

Since when do you have to run for mayor to have a say in how you are governed?

Permalink | Context

By Who are you again? (anonymous) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 11:43:55 in reply to Comment 86391

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 Kevin (registered) | Posted February 15, 2013 at 22:37:01 in reply to Comment 86385

Look who's talking. At least, Jason has the balls to put his name on everything, Pee Nut.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 19:38:05 in reply to Comment 86389

I would gladly use my first name in all my posts, but sadly it's already been taken. Oh well...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By me, me and me! (anonymous) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 12:12:43

OK you kids stop calling each other names.
What really concerns me is the miss information our councilors are sending to us. Councilor Farr and his puppet patrol (you know those James North types) need to come clean with all the "hear say" stats they've created...shame on this councilor and his puppets!

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 16, 2013 at 13:33:01 in reply to Comment 86404

Please stop this. There has been an abundance of evidence - real, peer-reviewed academic studies by university researchers and subject matter experts - on the economic and social implications of casinos. Stop pretending the data isn't there.

Also, please stop with the "puppet patrol" language - they're called constituents. Stop with the "James North types" language - they're property owners, entrepreneurs, investors, business owners, residents - and most importantly, citizens and human beings.

Please stop with the straw man attacks. Stop with the condescending tone ("you kids") and the sweeping dismissals. By all means, disagree if you disagree, but do it with respect for the evidence and with respect for the people you're communicating with.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 16:19:02 in reply to Comment 86406

agree totally with this. Only the city loses when things degrade to personal attacks or public calls on facebook to 'go bleep yourself' etc....
As you said previously Ryan, once this is all done, we all still live here and need to work together for the betterment of the city.

Permalink | Context

By yes Ryan, & Burak column (anonymous) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 14:33:51 in reply to Comment 86406

Yes Ryan, and see also http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/887153--burak-the-spectator-confuses-news-with-sales-pitches

by Sean Burak in Fri., Feb.15 Spectator:
"But I believe The Spectator doesn’t like talking to us, that under their breath, they call us “the usual suspects,” that it believes ink spent on us is ink wasted on “activists.” We are treated as fringe characters because we are engaged, informed and passionate. In order to get the facts out, we had to pay The Spectator for an advertisement in the same issue that hosted the Mercantis on the front page for free."
I was thinking much like this when Spectator ran Letter(s) very recently [this week, e.g.] saying with no evidence at all that expressed casino concern was same old hash from years past by same people. First, the concerns of "years" past were and are real & important, and were expressed concerns by thoughtful people with solid observation &, yes, evidence. And the beauty of the last few years re stadium, casino, or aerotropolis AEGD is exactly that there are many people expressing solidly argued views who were not previously involved and/or weren't even in Hamilton yet--or were still younger folks and now are bravely expressing good ideas well. Raise The Hammer and Citizens At City Hall have been enormously helpful and useful in providing material for these discussions--and I have heard some solid argument by those involved in those efforts that sometimes it seems that other "media"--Spec, radio, TV--are letting the volunteer efforts do the hard work, by default. That's been my view.

Permalink | Context

By Shawn Selway (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2013 at 00:36:12 in reply to Comment 86407

The purpose of the Spec etc is not to conduct research into current issues of the day but to sell the attention of readers to advertisers. This determines the greater part of what is told and how. Nonetheless the paper does field reporters and gather news. But the Spec has a low estimate of its readers' desire for information. Whether that estimate is accurate or not, who knows? For some years Torstar has been destroying the Spec as an institution. It no longer has much importance as a newspaper of record and very little as a presenter of even local issues. On national and international affairs it is a nullity.

The problem is not how to make the Spec more responsible, but how to promote the blogs to the Spec etc audience as an essential supplement to the uninformative "mainstream" media. I sometimes think that the "usual suspects" should take a page in the Spec and advertise the existence of RTH, the Hamiltonian, CATCH etc etc, just to see if traffic goes up. When seventy and eighty year olds are walking around with tablets, device penetration must be awfully high.

Permalink | Context

By Shea (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2013 at 15:34:20 in reply to Comment 86413

Shawn's comments here, and the astute--I think-- comments in #86407,"yes Ryan, & Burak column (anonymous)", are not mutually exclusive. Au contraire. Since what Shawn writes at the start of his comment about the Spec's purpose is accurate, or even true, therefore citizen readers can/should/must demand better. The Spec's print-any-comment letters, whether their 'facts' are demonstrable or not, has led in the Spec to ad hominem attacks and letters that impute motives to writers separate from arguments over the issue at hand. A House of Commons speaker (in the 1990s, I believe) told MPs not to do it. (Shawn or Shea is writing or saying this or that because EVERYONE knows that he probably is part of SOME group that THINKS this or that awful thing. Well, I may be, but it's separate from the argument at hand.)
A good/better newspaper would make it incumbent on a letter writer to give at least an example from that newspaper's articles or letters, which the new writer is responding to. When a reader says in annoyance to the letter on the page, "For example??", the example should BE there for the reader to go to. Even the Spec gives previous "Re" references in its "regular" curated letters. It's not good enough; not useful; not appropriate, to run "curated" letters that are no better than quick after-articles posted comments: Everybody knows (let's say) that the meteor or demon-comet that exploded over Russia this week is god's warning to evil-born humans. Everybody "knows" but with no evidence IN THE LETTER that this is "true"--and no copyright apology to Spec here (from so-called Letter, Thurs., Feb.14)--"Why does it seem that with every major development issue, the same few people get involved? This was the case with the board of education decision, the stadium debacle and, rewinding a few years, the Red Hill construction delay. The same activists seem to move from issue to issue, rallying troops along the way, rarely compromising on their position and when the debate is over, they move on to the next big thing. ..."
A letter should draw on what's actually been in the Spec or elsewhere to support that sort of thing. Go ahead. Either the writer can, or cannot. //

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted February 16, 2013 at 13:14:38

An article titled "Health groups pushed against casino in core" by Molly Hayes is posted on thespec.com today: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Permalink | Context

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 19, 2013 at 10:29:22 in reply to Comment 86405

...and now that one of Hamilton's MPPs is Minister of Community and Social Services, there should be some high-profile opportunties to lend an influential voice to the debate.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted February 19, 2013 at 10:55:13

Hey Pro-Casino goers .... you whant a Casino down-town GO VOTE next elections

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted February 20, 2013 at 08:16:22

"90,000 Hamiltonians are carded gamblers" by Andrew Dreschel on thespec.com today: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/a...

It looks as though the OLG (Ontario Liberal Government) and the OLG (Ontario Lottery and Gaming) will not rest until every Hamiltonian is a carded gambler.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted February 21, 2013 at 08:23:13

"Chamber of Commerce survey says 67% of respondents oppose standalone downtown casino" by Kayleigh Rogers and Samantha Craggs on CBC Hamilton: http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/20...

"Chamber businesses split over casino location" by Matthew Van Dongen on thespec.com: http://www.thespec.com/news/business/loc...

It is interesting to see that 50% of the Chamber members who responded to the survey support a casino the existing Flamborough location and 46% support a downtown casino so long as it is packaged with a hotel and entertainment complex.

What would the results have been had the Chamber members been asked a question along the following lines:

"Do you support a standalone casino at the existing Flamborough site and a new downtown hotel and entertainment complex without a casino?"

This question presents a very real option given the potential obstacles to building a hotel at Flamboro Downs and the promise made by Carmen's to build a downtown hotel with restaurant and entertainment components contingent within three to five years of winning the Hamilton Convention Centre management contract.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2013-02-21 08:43:21

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sky (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2013 at 13:59:45

Hi Renaissance,

As a member of the FCC and friends of the HCC ~ to answer your question ~ Yes, I believe the majority would support a "standalone casino" in Flamborough and a new hotel, restaurant etc in the core.

I personally would like to see the Casino stay in Flamborough~yet~ if it is not approved then I will support a downtown location with stipulations on monitoring the addicted Gamblers.

Where there is a will to compromise, there is a way to make things work!

Have an awesome day everyone.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2013 at 09:42:35

http://lifeofsamm.livejournal.com/1632.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2013 at 12:46:29

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281747/New-casino-Atlantic-Citys-2-4bn-Revel-files-bankruptcy-year-opening.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2013 at 12:50:47

"Ontario is taking steps to privatize the operation of its lucrative lottery business in hopes that the move, which would be a first among Canadian provinces, will rake in even more revenue to support public finances.

The first step of the bidding process is already under way, with plans to award a contract by the end of 2013. According to sources close to the process, one of the parties interested in bidding for the 10-year contract is Camelot Group PLC, which operates Britain’s national lottery and was bought by the giant Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan about three years ago."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cash-strapped-ontario-ready-to-gamble-on-privatizing-its-lotteries/article9017031/

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