Sports

Cycling Facility or Parking Lot?

By Jason Leach
Published May 13, 2010

Someone please help me out.

Is a velodrome a cycling facility? Or a parking lot?

That's all these guys ever talk about.

In many ways I want the velodrome to locate near the harbour even more than the stadium. It is hoped to become a mixed use recreational and sport facility after the games.

All new sports facilities and rec centres in Hamilton these days are built in the burbs. This is our chance for a new showpiece facility at the water in the heart of the city.

One thing this whole Pan Am process has shown is that the bad policies and development patterns in Hamilton run a lot deeper than just an inept council.

In this case, council is right and yet are being pulled to invest more into sprawl instead of taking a chance for legacy building on dirty brownfields in the heart of the city. It's going to be a looooong road back for Hamilton when such backwards thinking runs so deep in our city.

Jason Leach was born and raised in the Hammer and currently lives downtown with his wife and children. You can follow him on twitter.

45 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 13, 2010 at 20:16:48

Also in today's Spec:

Talk of putting a future stadium anywhere outside the downtown is "prehistoric" and "neanderthal" thinking, according to the Hamilton Economic Summit's keynote speaker Storm Cunningham.

That's probably not surprising from an author, consultant and speaker who preaches the gospel of cities containing urban sprawl and revitalizing all that they already have going for them.

"The city is on the right side of the stadium issue," said Cunningham, when asked about the bubbling controversy between the city's desire to build the Pan Am Games stadium along the west harbour and the Ticats' contention that they couldn't make it work for their football operation.

"Building a sprawl stadium would be a huge mistake. It's prehistoric thinking."

He said cities once plunked stadiums down in green space at the edge of cities, which quickly became white elephants.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-05-13 19:17:22

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted May 13, 2010 at 21:29:24

Ryan - is there any way to combine this blog and the next down the list into one blog? Perfect counterpoint.

I say cancel the whole ridiculous boondogle, Pan Am Games and all. Balancing Books gives all the reason one needs to realize we are in deep doodoo although it only considers personal debt (one must add public debt - does anyone know what that is?)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod K (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 09:10:26

At least they:

- have an actual site and not just a vague area

- have some practical reasons- the road and mountain biking trails nearby

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 09:38:57

I thought that article was great Ryan.

Maybe the Ti-Cats should change their name to the Sabre-Tooth Tigers?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod K. (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 09:57:12

"Talk of putting a future stadium anywhere outside the downtown is "prehistoric" and "neanderthal" thinking, according to the Hamilton Economic Summit's keynote speaker Storm Cunningham.

That's probably not surprising from an author, consultant and speaker who preaches the gospel of cities containing urban sprawl and revitalizing all that they already have going for them.

"The city is on the right side of the stadium issue," said Cunningham, when asked about the bubbling controversy between the city's desire to build the Pan Am Games stadium along the west harbour and the Ticats' contention that they couldn't make it work for their football operation.

"Building a sprawl stadium would be a huge mistake. It's prehistoric thinking."

He said cities once plunked stadiums down in green space at the edge of cities, which quickly became white elephants."

You know the responses this will get.....

"That may work well for other cities but it would NEVER fly in the Hammer!"
"What does he know- he's not even a Hamiltonian"
"we've been doing it this way for the last 50 years and its served us well


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Just Tom (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:18:06

I'm just wondering, with such a great many people rejecting the west harbour as a site for the stadium and now the cycling centre rejecting it also, you would think the mayor would just come out and admit it's not a good site instead of, well we'll just use that space for parking then. The bottom line is the site is being rejected by so many because it's just not a viable, long term location for any facility.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:41:22

Not a great many people Just Tom, just a few typical complainers who can't imagine a city without acres of parking everywhere.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cyclotron (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:52:53

Looking at the rationale that many if not most on council employed when bleeding the Future Fund, here's an elegant escape route: The city should remediate the Rheem brownfield to residential quality and tack that premium onto the private sector buy-in for relocation elsewhere. The property will become valuable to private developers such as the Molinaro Group, and the city can steer this into not just a profitable land flip but also high-density mixed-use on the site, a local demographic to support the proposed West Harbour development. North enders will have to bend on north end development. The waterfront is nice enough as it stands but it's not a vibrant, 365-day-a-year waterfront by any means. Used to its full potential, it will inevitably make the neighbourhood a busier place. If that means you can't hear crickets at night or your kids can't play marbles in the middle of the street, maybe that's just part of sharing public lands with the public.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 11:11:35

Just Tom, those rejecting the site aren't doing so because it's not a viable long term location, but because they only know one model of development: 80 acres of parking surrounding every single facility that is ever built.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 12:57:51

it's just not a viable, long term location for any facility - Just Tom

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Simple rebuttal...

The average life span of a stadium is 30 years. Given the predictable rise in fuel costs over the next 30 years, what is more sustainable, a stadium with no viable access except by car (unless you consider a 40 minute bus ride from downtown followed by a half hour walk viable?) or a stadium with transit, bike, walking and car accessibility all within minutes of the downtown core?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 13:38:03

Bob Young isn't interested in the long term viability of the Cats. He's looking to sell and just wants an asset that will look good in the short term.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 15:26:52

Excellent point Kiely and exactly my thinking... Why must do we seem destined to build like we're in the 70s and remain oblivious to the future?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By od K (anonymous) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 15:34:07

Here are two recent articles that show that even the sports community see the greater value to the city

The first is from Doug Farraway, a Hamiltonian, and the sports director at Fan590. His is pretty straightforward

http://blog.rogersbroadcasting.com/deacon/2010/05/11/sign-on-or-sign-off/

The other is from Glen suitor at TSN and a former CFL. He is a little more wishy washy (and admittingly in the article not fully knowledged in the situation) but I like how he wmphasizes that a stadium must be good for the whole community

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/glen_suitor/?id=321544

Now of the "jock set" are starting to get this, why can't others?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 15:39:04

Excellent point Kiely and exactly my thinking... Why must do we seem destined to build like we're in the 70s and remain oblivious to the future? - frank

Most of our politicians and business "leaders" received their degrees in the 1970's or earlier and haven't learned a damn thing since.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted May 14, 2010 at 17:26:06

Two things that stand out for me from the velodrome article:

"The NCCH feels that by locating the velodrome in an alternative location that the issue of adequate parking for the stadium can be resolved." [...] The 2.4 hectares the velodrome would occupy could produce between 600 and 750 parking spots.

A major positive of the west harbour location is NOT CREATING MORE SURFACE PARKING!

"We're looking at a holistic plan for Hamilton's part in the Pan Ams," Iler pointed out.

I don't think Iler gets it - how is separating the 2 facilities, to create more surface parking at BOTH spots "holistic" in a city which already has a major problem concerning too much surface parking, and too much car-centric planning?

The second:

would be safer to access for cyclists

I'm not sure how Olympic Park is safer to access for cyclists - it's totally dependent upon where the cyclists are coming from. But I do know that that street is absolutely not cyclist friendly as it stands now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted May 14, 2010 at 18:11:02

Parking Lot, the Velodrome can be built closer to McMaster, as this form of cycling really begins at the collegiate level. The extra parking spaces is a good compromise for the Ti-Cats to generate revenue.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 15, 2010 at 13:49:27

last time I rode it, the waterfront trail from McMaster to the west harbour site was about 10-15 minute ride. Or do the millions of people who use that trail not count to the folks in charge of the velodrome, just like they don't count to those identifying a good spot for a billboard, I mean, stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cynic (anonymous) | Posted May 16, 2010 at 22:11:17

Iler and the gang simply want their new toy in their back yard. Citing demographics as site criteria is telling. There's no doubt that competitive cycling can be an expensive sport, so shouldn't it be nearest to the richest neighbourhoods in the city?

Access be damned, this is for their use, not Hamilton's.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 16, 2010 at 22:24:00

then perhaps their rich friends can pay for it themselves and Hamilton can use the government money earmarked for OUR Pan Am facilities on LRT or a more impressive stadium. I'm tired of people in the burbs acting like it's their God given right to poach whatever they can from the city. They already pay lower taxes than us. The line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By _ (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 06:49:36

Is "Jason" the same person as "Jason Leach"??

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By _ (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 07:10:08

Jason,

As it stands, all of the City's investment IS slated to go downtown, Copp's, the stadium and velodrome?

How is suggesting that one of the facilities go just outside of the downtown "poaching"?

Isn't Dundas part of Hamilton?

And just a quick question, where do you live Jason?

You are accusing people of trying to move the velodrome into their backyard and you live within sight of the proposed West Harbour site.

And Jason, aren't you the same guy who wrote this?

By jason (registered)Posted March 19, 2010 18:42:27

yep, James is the only N/S street worth doing this on. It'll take about 90 seconds to cycle from Cannon to Burlington St so I can't imagine too many folks will participate in this event (I wonder if Hamilton will be first city to screw up a cyclovia?). I know I won't.

First of all, Cannon isn't a street for cycling, especially with kids. We'll stick to our neighborhood park on that day, or do the old bikes in the back of the car down to the waterfront routine. I hate doing it, but I refuse to sacrifice one of my kids just because the city won't spend a few hundred bucks on some paint along the side of one of our many undercapcityc roads.

And by the way, I'm sitting on my front porch as I type this catching glimpses of the harbour, skyway bridge and steel mills through the trees (hey, is that a PRIMUS sign down there!?).

I'm very close to the harbour and yet there is no safe way to cycle there. I applaud the Open Streets folks and hope they will be able to gather some public support in order to get the city to do the right thing in future years. Based on the success the Mustard Festival people have had in trying to close King down for over a decade during their event, I'm not optimistic.

"I'm very close to the harbour and yet there is no safe way to cycle there."


"I'm very close to the harbour and yet there is no safe way to cycle there."


"I'm very close to the harbour and yet there is no safe way to cycle there."

Wow, that sounds like a great place to build a bicycle facility - in a place that there is "no safe way to cycle there."

I can just imagine all of the international cyclists wanting to ride in and out of he downtown core for their training sessions. The traffic, exhaust and friendly drivers will really enhance their experience.

And forget about the elite cyclists for a minute, I'm going to feel great sending my youngsters on their bikes through downtown traffic to get to the velodrome!

Jason, it is clear that it is YOUR position that YOU want the velodrome and other facilities in YOUR backyard without regard to the long-term sustainability of the facility.

Is having the velodrome downtown more important than having a sustainable and well-used faciltity?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 09:13:18

Is having the velodrome downtown more important than having a sustainable and well-used faciltity?

Having the velodrome downtown is the only way to make it sustainable and well-used by anyone other than Iler and his rich suburban friends. Iler is the one who is placing his personal preferences over the long-term success of this facility.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 09:18:16

also, the only way we'll ever see change come to the urban cycling network is to locate facilities like this down there. we can't continue to allow folks in the outlying areas to be satisfied with a bike network that ends on either side of the core and continue to make new bike investments in their areas only.
The PanAm opportunity is one primarily driven (in my mind) by the legacy opportunities. I know special interests always want to place the health and success of the city way down their priority list, but to me it's priority number one with our Pan Am facilities.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 09:44:29

The city agreeing to a facilitator with the Cats has opened the flood gates... Mayor Eisenberger should have stuck to his guns. Next we'll be arguing about where the Pan Am games souvenir stands should go.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 17, 2010 at 10:40:49

"I'm very close to the harbour and yet there is no safe way to cycle there."

Setting aside Underscore's vituperative personal attack against Jason (seriously, folks, can't we just stick to the issues?), it seems clear that the construction of a velodrome should be concurrent with the construction of a usable bike lane network that links the facility, the Waterfront and Waterfront Trail, the downtown, the adjacent neighbourhoods, the Bruce Trail and Radial Trail, and so on.

The whole point of a major public expenditure like a velodrome is that it serves the public good and not just the narrow private goods of selected users.

One of the issues at play is that "cyclists" is not a monolithic set of people who use the same vehicles in the same way for the same purposes. There are people who use bikes voluntarily to commute to work, people who ride for recreation (on-road and off-road, competitively and non-competitively), people who ride through necessity for various reasons, and so on. Similarly, the motives to ride include environmentalism, economy, health, fitness, convenience, and urbanism in various combinations.

It sounds like Iler and company represent a particular subset of cyclists whose interests may not be the same as, for example, mine as a commuter riding city streets on a utility beater. However, it does seem clear that the subset Iler represents overlaps closely with the likely set of velodrome users.

Now, I think it's a mistake to make decisions in such a way that they simply reinforce the status quo, but it's worth asking whether putting a velodrome downtown will actually be transformative - i.e. will actually advance the public good by encouraging widespread cycling. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 11:22:33

...which means it's also worth asking if placing it in Dundas will advance the public good, and since the bulk of the funding is coming from taxpayers, we need to choose the site that will bring the most public benefit (even if that benefit is not transformative), or at the very least, produce the least harm. I'm pretty confident that site is not Dundas.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 17, 2010 at 11:50:01

which means it's also worth asking if placing it in Dundas will advance the public good

Yes, absolutely. My point is that we should construct it in such a way that it maximizes the potential to be transformative for everyone.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2010-05-17 10:51:15

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 13:51:08

Yes, absolutely. My point is that we should construct it in such a way that it maximizes the potential to be transformative for everyone.

Yes, but I also agree that it's an open question whether it will be transformative at all, so we also need to be looking simply at where it will cause the least harm. The negatives of a Dundas location vis a vis long-term environmental and economic sustainability outweigh the benefits IMO, transformative or otherwise.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nm (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 15:53:43

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 z jones (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:26:01

Sticking to the issues:

we need to choose the site that will bring the most public benefit (even if that benefit is not transformative), or at the very least, produce the least harm.

Not sticking to the issues:

So Dundas doesn't deserve a velodrome because it has rich people living in it? I think Pan-am visitors might actually enjoy seeing how nice parts of Hamilton - deal with it - are.

Hoist on your own petard there, nm.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:32:52

So Dundas doesn't deserve a velodrome because it has rich people living in it?

No one has said anything of the sort. I don't believe a Dundas location gives the people of Hamilton the best bang for their buck. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Dundas is deserving or not, unless the people of Dundas are footing the bill for the velodrome on their own.

I think Pan-am visitors might actually enjoy seeing how nice parts of Hamilton...are.

You do realize that Olympic Park is right next to the dump, don't you? If we're worried about our image, this is yet another reason not to locate the velodrome in Dundas.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nm (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:43:16

"then perhaps their rich friends can pay for it themselves and Hamilton can use the government money earmarked for OUR Pan Am facilities on LRT or a more impressive stadium. I'm tired of people in the burbs acting like it's their God given right to poach whatever they can from the city. They already pay lower taxes than us. The line needs to be drawn somewhere."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:51:21

Jason was referring to the National Cycling Centre Hamilton and their supporters, not the citizens of Dundas. The NCCH is on the record as saying that most of their members come from outlying areas and do not want to come into the city, so if anyone is engaging in us vs. them rhetoric, it's the people behind the push to keep the velodrome away from the downtown. If the NCCH were footing the bill for it on their own, they could put it wherever they want I suppose, but as Jason notes, they want the people of Hamilton to build them a nice velodrome and then they give us the back of their hand.

Comment edited by highwater on 2010-05-17 15:57:59

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Copenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 12:00:37

Jason said "also, the only way we'll ever see change come to the urban cycling network is to locate facilities like this down there [West Harbour]."

Jason, many people on this website have cited Copenhagen as being the beacon for cycling planning and especially for urban cycling initiatives.

Maybe you can show me on a map of Copenhagen's waterfront where exactly their velodrome is situated.

It sounds to me that you are simply making statements to suit your personal interests, without having any real basis in reality or fact.

If you want your opinions to be given weight, you have to substantiate them with some reliable evidence. Otherwise, they are nothing more than your own personal opinions.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 18, 2010 at 13:34:06

Maybe you can show me on a map of Copenhagen's waterfront where exactly their velodrome is situated.

Copenhagen's velodrome is by their waterfront.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Anders (registered) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 14:01:20

I think that link's wrong. The only velodrome I can find is here

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 18, 2010 at 14:03:59

Looks like Copenhagen has two velodromes; and in fairness to "Copenhagen" above, only one of them is by the waterfront.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Copenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 20:24:11

Sorry Ryan, which of the velodromes is by the waterfront in downtown Copenhagen?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 21:02:03

Jason was referring to the National Cycling Centre Hamilton and their supporters, not the citizens of Dundas. The NCCH is on the record as saying that most of their members come from outlying areas and do not want to come into the city, so if anyone is engaging in us vs. them rhetoric, it's the people behind the push to keep the velodrome away from the downtown. If the NCCH were footing the bill for it on their own, they could put it wherever they want I suppose, but as Jason notes, they want the people of Hamilton to build them a nice velodrome and then they give us the back of their hand.

This^

Comment edited by jason on 2010-05-18 20:03:46

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Copenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:33:50

Just to correct the record, there is one operational velodrome in Copenhagen.

That velodrome is in Ballerup.
Ballerup is a small suburb, northwest of Copenhagen, about 15km from the city centre.

Ballerup is no where near the waterfront.

It would have been nice if Ryan corrected this error when he was confronted with the facts.

I also note that as a moderator, Ryan has no problem with allowing personal and baseless attacks being leveled against the National Cycling Centre Hamilton and Andrew Iler, but when Jason is challenged with written statements he has made on the subject of there being no safe way to cycle to the harbour, that this is considered a "vituperative" attack.

So we have misinformation about velodrome locations in Denmark standing uncorrected and an impartial moderator allowing unchecked attacks against one viewpoint and censure against fair comment.

How can any of this considered an important and legitimate forum for discussion on important issues?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Copenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 12:19:11

Ryan,

I take it that you were referring to the former velodrome in Ordrup, which is no longer in existence.

http://www.fixedgearfever.com/modules.php?name=Velodromes&op=showtrack&id=1473

• The first track at Ordrup (333m) opened in 1888. Racing took place at the site until September 2000, when the venue was closed (to be replaced by the Ballerup indoor velodrome).-tci
This may help question Highwater's unfounded statement that, "the only way we'll ever see change come to the urban cycling network is to locate facilities like this down there."

It may also suggests that the personally held opinions that the only viable location for a velodrome is in an urban-locked waterfront area are not validated by the exemplar of cycling cities, Copehagen.

Maybe Copenhagen planned their cycling facilities all wrong.

Or maybe they realized that the people who ride their bikes to work and who utilize their waterfront trails and urban cycling paths and lanes are NOT necessarily the same people who will use a velodrome facility for training, competition or for general fitness.

Maybe Copenhagen looked at the international teams and other identified users from across Denmark and Europe who would be using the Velodrome as a Centre for both track and road training and who would not want to contend with downtown traffic while being based at the velodrome.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 19, 2010 at 13:24:22

It would have been nice if Ryan corrected this error when he was confronted with the facts.

It looks like I was wrong about the Ordrup Velodrome. The reference I found identified some of the Copenhagen velodromes as "defunct" but not Ordrup, so I assumed it was not defunct.

However, on further research I've found some other sources that confirm Ordrup is no longer functional.

I do take issue with your contention that you "confronted" me with "the facts", by which you seem to mean a one-sentence rhetorical question.

We all make mistakes and I'm happy to acknowledge that I was in error, but it would have been helpful if you provided some sources instead of just sarcasm.

I also note that as a moderator, Ryan

Just to clarify, comments on this site are community moderated by its registered users. I'm the site editor, but I'm no more a comment moderator than any other registered user. The only additional power I take as site admin is to delete obvious spam.

has no problem with allowing personal and baseless attacks being leveled against the National Cycling Centre Hamilton and Andrew Iler

What "personal and baseless attacks"? That their interests are not representative of all cyclists in Hamilton? That they're a special interest looking for public funding for their chosen sport? That they mainly live in outlying areas and don't want to come downtown to access a velodrome?

There's certainly some frustration with the persistent argument in favour of building things far from the centre of town with automobile-only accessibility, but that's because Hamilton has been following this model for decades and the negative consequences are impossible to ignore.

It rather sounds like you're just being combative. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with your statement:

Or maybe they realized that the people who ride their bikes to work and who utilize their waterfront trails and urban cycling paths and lanes are NOT necessarily the same people who will use a velodrome facility for training, competition or for general fitness.

I made essentially the same point in this comment:

It sounds like Iler and company represent a particular subset of cyclists whose interests may not be the same as, for example, mine as a commuter riding city streets on a utility beater. However, it does seem clear that the subset Iler represents overlaps closely with the likely set of velodrome users.

We'll all end up having a more productive discussion if we drop the accusatory tone and try to remain civil.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hopenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 13:53:52

"This may help question Highwater's unfounded statement that, 'the only way we'll ever see change come to the urban cycling network is to locate facilities like this down there.'"

Or maybe it means we should build our first velodrome close to the waterfront like Copenhagen did, and then eventually replace it with another velodrome outside the downtown core once cycling in across the city is as well established in the Hammer as it is in Copenhagen.

Face it, you're just bicycle-shedding.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 14:52:15

This may help question Highwater's unfounded statement that, "the only way we'll ever see change come to the urban cycling network is to locate facilities like this down there."

I never said that.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Copenhagen (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 15:47:29

Sorry Highwater, it was Jason, not you.

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