Reference: 6/2/10 Tribune "My Turn" article from Cynthia Kaufman, PhD, philosophy, http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_15205778
No on L and their supporting City Council Members 2006
Why not build city tax revenue the old fashion way through economic opportunities? Take a page from "city government primer 101": The people already pay enough taxes. Here's an older (2005) study that illustrates clearly that the average US citizen pays over 50% in taxes. http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html. And, a quick calculation methodology specific to you and your family income http://www.catslv.org/pay.html .
In Pacifica, CA, our personal taxes may be are higher the average calculation indicates. In addition to payroll taxes (FICA, Federal, State), we pay property tax, school tax, utilities taxes, embedded city franchise and other fees (examples, sewer, trash, Comcast), high gasoline taxes, sales and use taxes (including highway improvement, state budget stabilization, 9.25%), and a variety of other state, city and federal taxes and fees.
Pacifica is not economically sustainable from commercial and residential tax revenue. Commercial revenue has been repeatedly rejected by the existing city council, while at the same time this same city council has encouraged moving land out of city jurisdiction into non-productive "open space". However, "pretty hills"* do not for the most part pay the bills, or for the provide jobs and services for people. So, what is Pacifica doing to help itself other than taxing its citizens, and continuing to find new ways to tax its citizens?
This city council majority has been clearly against "smart tax revenue generating development" even on flat lands including the Beach/Palmetto commercial strip, and in the quarry re-development zone designated for development. As a result, this city has been set-up for maintenance and improvement infrastructure failure. * "Pretty hills" was an expression first heard from Jeff Simons. city activist and city council candidate during the 2008 election.
Had enough of the existing city council management yet? Really, it does not have to be this way, Pacifica can improve. In this important election year let's make history, volunteer for a few months to change the direction of what's left of this city, and support genuine pro-economic candidates. To join email Pacificans for an Improved Economy (PIE) at improvedeconomy@gmail.com.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
53 comments:
A recent Zogby poll, as cited by the Wall Street Journal, gives us significant insight as to why The People's Republic of Pacifica is in such dire financial straights:
Zogby Poll Shows Liberals Flunk Economics 101
Bottom line from the article:
How did the six ideological groups do overall in the Economics 101 quiz? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Economics professor's criticism of the Zogby Poll
(not to self, blogger likes to eat posts so always save your intelligent, nonpartisan arguments before clicking that "POST COMMENT" button!)
well the bottom line of what I tried to post is that we can argue about jobs and the economy all day long, and I don't see this issue as a partisan issue . . . the effects of NOT creating jobs and industry in Pacifica are pretty overwhelming and unless the city (and to a certain degree the state of California) makes a change in how it does business, the economy will continue to spiral into higher taxes and fewer services.
Yeah, that Sarah Palin seems like Nobel material -- she probably just went to five different community colleges over six years because she wanted to round out her education with different perspectives. You betcha!
I don't think conservatives do themselves any favors by supporting Palin either. The gap between what she "says" and what she did as the governor of Alaska (fiscally speaking) is pretty wide.
Before she was nominated for VP, most Alaskans thought Palin was a pretty good governor. Even a former Alaska resident like myself thought she was doing a good job up there.
After she was nominated for VP, the fame went to her head, and she totally changed her persona. Pre-nomination Sarah was not at all like post-nomination Sarah. She went from relatively non-partisan and pragmatic to far-right wacko. Now she's very unpopular in Alaska, mostly because they view her as a quitter who decided to put her own personal glory above all else.
Regarding CA's Jerry Brown, Palin had this to say:
Look what he did when he was Governor. Look at what the foundation has been built upon there in California and he had been a part of that and that was spending outside of their means.
What language is she trying to speak?
"What language is she trying to speak?"
I believe it is called English sans teleprompter. Libs are unfamiliar with it.
"Now she's very unpopular in Alaska, mostly because they view her as a quitter who decided to put her own personal glory above all else."
Gee, popular while governor, unpopular when she left. Sounds like she was a pretty damn good governor. But that's just me...
"Yeah, that Sarah Palin seems like Nobel material..."
I agree. But she will have to stand in line behind Pelosi and Boxer. Oh, and did I remember to say she doesn't use a teleprompter???
@Above-average liberal
Good cite - a lib blogger with a book to sell.
"Palin, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Haliburton..."
GET OVER IT! It was hard, but we managed to get over Clinton. You've been running both the legislative and executive branches for quite some time now. When are you libs ever going to take responsibility for the state of things in this country? Clue: Wait for the teleprompter before you answer..
Conservative, hopefully you will focus on the problems of this city for this election. National politics is not going to save this city, in which case it doesn't really matter who said what to whom. Challenger pro-economy candidates may save this city, deterioration "no growth" candidates cannot. Send me an email at improvedeconomy@gmail.com
Scotty said "Yeah, that Sarah Palin seems like Nobel material"
No. They only award the Nobel nowadays based upon what you say you are going to do, not what you have actually done. You know, like Barry...
"Knows tangent rules" please try to see "the forest for the trees". Ah, Sara is more like Tod Schlesinger locally, except Tod is on the improvement side of the argument with solutions, and has no need to check hand-notes.
Does it have to be either - or? I believe we can have our "pretty hills" (that add value making Pacifica a unique community if we capitalized on promoting such) as well as a strong economy. We do though need to develop a plan of action, versus the constant finger pointing and bickering that one side is right and one is wrong. I know we've done it before in various forms, but I would hope that at some point soon people will come together and map out a total plan to include how to move the city forward. We should be looking 30 years into the future, what Pacifica can be, and develop the plan to get there. Once we have the plan, let's DO IT! Even if there are missteps along the way it is better than doing nothing.
Anonymous, what you say is logic, but the past 8 years has been city council failure of act toward a positive economic vision. With much land also moved out-of-city-jurisdiction during that tenure. Shall we not look back, and let history repeat itself? "This is like deja vu all over again" (Yogi Berra).
We live here, and we know what has happened and what has not happened. Now its "fix your own roads"( Tribune front page 6/9 and recent Fix Pacifica article). The vision of the past includes 1) no significant economic development progress, 2) continuation of crumbling, deficient city infrastructure, 3) platitudes of "our environment is our economy", 4) endless proposed and actual plans of taxation and fees to property owners, volunteerism and additional cost to all citizens.
Is that "finger pointing" as you suggest, or is this reality as I suggest? Do we have no more cognitive ability or memory to understand these issues than our pets? Or, is it probable that our pets when trained have a superior understanding of how to avoid self-inflicted mistakes and pain than we do? After 8 long years of "nothing for Pacifica" shall we continue to trust, and believe incumbents and their appointed leadership friends? Or, do we have the capacity to reason that pro-economy candidates may actually be able to "save this city"-- if its possible.
Hopefully, this time we've had enough. Vote-out city council incumbents, and don't believe their clone friends. Been there, done that, had enough.
Want to "save our city", time to get involved, time to get responsible and accountable-- time to work toward a balanced economic, civic benefit, and responsible ecology plan and vision. If implemented, will this take us 30 years into the future? Hard to say. This city has been stripped bare by the leadership mistakes of the past 8 years.
The problem with saying "let's come up with a plan to capitalize on our pretty hills," is that people have been saying it for 30 years, and nothing's happened.
Now we're being asked to wait another 30 years to implement a new "environment is our economy"-based plan.
The earlier comment did not indicate that "environment is our economy". It was noted that we do have something value here in Pacifica -- the hills (and ocean). There can be a balance of economic growth along with protecting and utilizing the natural resources to benefit the community.
"There can be a balance of economic growth along with protecting and utilizing the natural resources to benefit the community."
Not while this current City Council and their supporters dominate the direction of Pacifica. If you truly believe that this vision is possible, please work as hard as you can to vote in a new City Council this year.
How is "environment is our economy" different than saying "let's take advantage of our pretty hills (and ocean)"?
They are one and the same.
The difference in the statements (environment is our economy vs let's take advantage of our pretty hills and ocean) could be that our only focus shouldn't be on developing tourism. I believe that has been a long focus of Pacifica politicos (and the past Chamber of Commerce head), which hasn't done much for the city.
The present (8-year!) council approved all kinds of housing projects. They are not being built because of the housing crash. Anybody set to deny that there's a housing crash?
There's no large commercial development because, lo and behold, it doesn't work here. Small stuff, (and totally worthwhile) such as the new pet hospital below the Connemara project is great.
Because we have so little demand, the building that that pet hospital vacated is now vacant and for sale.
Tell us how large scale commercial development would ever be feasible here? The demographics are wrong, the geography is wrong, and we're all shopping over the hill as it is.
Lionel, nothing begets nothing, and that deficiency causes further deterioration. That's the 8 year pattern. City council has not been proactive to bring business or development into this city, just the opposite. They were very active and enthusiastic to move property out of city jurisdiction. while promoting trails, a flaky biodiesel plant, beach front city hall. They had opportunities to develop Palmetto and the Quarry 2x.
Really Pacifica would not have had to be known as Pathetica. Large scale commercial? With 60% of land moved out of city jurisdiction including our valleys and back hills where could that possibly occur? The quarry? Wasn't that intended to be developed? The two projects presented were mixed-use. What has been known prior to 8 years is this city needs to be financially viable to pay overhead, maintenance, and how about improvement? That's what this city council turned their back-on.
One of my Fortune 500 friends located their highly successful securities business on Kings Mountain, Woodside (rural area). Years ago, there was some kind of large business that wanted to locate near Cattle Hill here, and I've been told by larger parcel owners that they were pressured by a key city employee to gift their land to open space and take the tax break. We hear that mantra repeated by "no growth" individual in this city as well. Sylvania wanted to locate somewhere on the coast Moss Beach area I think. This is a San Mateo County unincorporated area, but Sylvania ran into local discouragement there. "No growth" mantra plays well further south along the coast as well, but Pacifica is a gateway city to the coast, and if anything being situated adjacent to peninsula cities should be a little more with it.
No, the problem is leadership in this city, the city council majority of which needs to change to pro-economic again, as it was prior to 8 years ago. Take care of business the old fashion way. Provide more services, jobs and tax revenue for the benefit of the people of this city. And, its unfortunate, city potential has been damaged.
From periodically handing-out civic literature at Safeway Linda Mar periodically, I believe about 20-25% of shoppers there live down the coast, and various others about 5%. For sure if you don't build it, they won't come.
Jim Vreeland, is a very very good man. He approved our Clocktower project. He even gave me a variance on the roof height.
Clocktower been a berry, berry good project to me. Pacifica been berry, berry good city to me. Taxpayers been berry, berry good to me. Mike Angel been, berry bad to me. Maureen Lennon been berry, berry bad to me. David Carmany been berry, berry bad to me.
Cal Hinton? Cal been berry, berry bad councilmember. Cal always took two parking places at Council chambers. Chico, strike that me, never allowed Cal to be mayor. Never. NADA! Chico, strike that again, me, like parades. I like riding in convertible waving to my fans. People love me. They vote for me. I love me too.
Lionel, you have got to be absolutely nuts to think an Outlet Mall would not be a hit here. Check out the location of the nearest Outlet Mall, it is in Gilroy! Ask most females you know, when on a driving trip up to Tahoe, they incorporate some sort of stop at the Outlets (there are several) on the way. Take a survey of any travel agents, find out about one of the top questions they get from tourists. Where are the closest outlet malls?
Precisely because we are in a recession with no foreseeable end, an outlet mall is the most economically viable option, short of putting in a Walmart. We have no Walmart close by, either. I think we would at least agree an and outlet mall complex would be preferable to a Walmart.
We have the perfect location for an Outlet Mall, just off the highway in an area already in line for highway improvement. And, if they have any brains over at the Cal Trans and the SMCTA easy access to the quarry will be incorporated. In my opinion the stench, that continues to eminate from our State of the Art Waste Water Treatment Plant, makes this location unfit for anything but commercial development. Housing, permanent or temporary, would not be successful in this location because of the stench and I’m sure we can agree we don’t want anymore storage unit condos or wrecking lots littering up the coastal view.
I know there are proponents of filling up the empty and unpopular developments we have now. However, they are empty and unpopular for a reason, not just the recession. In the restaurant industry, if an F&B concept is not working( i.e Mexican food vs. Thai) , the smart owner changes the concept. Eureka Square will never be successful as a retail sales mall, poor access and terrible signage. However, it’s a perfect location for redevelopment in to exclusive coastal view housing. At least the occupants wouldn’t have Conemara’s charming industrial view. As for the back of the valley, lots of options might be successful in the middle of a quiet urban neighborhood. A civic complex would do well there, a state of the art library that specializes in a collection that would draw in researchers, an art complex, a museum. Finally, Pedro Point is in desperate need of signage, lighting on the access road and a parking lot redo. But any one going out for dinner in town lately, can’t deny the cluster concept of restaurants there seems to be catching on, hopefully they will get that mess of construction on the roofs taken care of soon. With some decent lighting and signage maybe more folks whizzing by to HMB will stop in there for a bite to eat.
These are but a few ideas to toss around for those folks out there who are tax payers, Pacificans and property owners deeply concerned about the continuing loss of their home values and no longer able to subsidize this cities lack of commercial tax revenue.
Sharon & Kathy pretty much summed it up. Lionel wrote "and we're all shopping over the hill". Lionel, why are we shopping out of town? Because what we need is not available here. I just don't understand your arguments. You seem to be constantly complaining about rising fees, yet it seems you are not associating same with very little commercial tax base. For a town of 40,000 people, the burden of nearly all taxes and fees is shouldered by residential property owners. The housing crash began only 3 years ago. This city has been going south for many years. It is time for a change in our leadership. Lets vote in people with a vision to provide a better balance between our environment, recreation, as well as smart commercial & business development. We have 2 great potential locations just sitting there for many years. The quarry and the old water treatment plant on Palmetto. The quarry would make a great spot for an outlet mall. The old water treatment plant located on prime oceanfront property, can be developed with a nice hotel and cluster businesses such as restaurants, shops and night life. We can have a larger tax base, more local jobs, less commute traffic and most importantly, many of us locals won't be going over the hill to spend our hard earned money. Win win for all of us.
The reason that so many businesses have left Eureka Square is that the landlords have been steeply raising rent in a down economy. The same is true to a lesser degree in Linda Mar. If you want a vibrant successful business climate in Pacifica, l you have to take a serious look at commercial rent control.
"Lets vote in people with a vision to provide a better balance between our environment, recreation, as well as smart commercial & business development." WHO ARE THOSE PEOPLE?
"The quarry would make a great spot for an outlet mall." WHO IS GOING TO BUILD THAT?
If you can't say who the people are to vote in, and you can't find a developer to do an outlet mall, then this discussion is pointless.
Anonymous @2:32PM, its not much of a stretch to say your comment considerations are "POINTLESS" (capitalized as you wish for your benefit). Specific individuals will declare their candidacy by the end of the day, August 2nd, so maybe hold your breath until then.
You would think people who campaigned against quarry "355 housing units", a downtown village and $17 million in city tax revenue would be delighted with a commercial/retail development such as an alternative Outlet Mall suggestion, which would bring in less tax revenue but include no housing.
Therefore, Anonymous @2:32PM is it the case that any productive tax revenue producing development would be unacceptable to those of you who prefer a blighted, inadequate city with high taxes and fees levied on property owners, and developers/builders who are mostly rare these days. 3 new property taxes are proposed after the election. Lack of a balance city economy is a core reason to replace the existing city council with one that is pro-economy.
Good grief, you're dense. I'm not saying an outlet mall is unacceptable. I'm asking who will build it? How would you get a commercial development in the quarry? Even if the city council was replaced, you still need to have a developer and financing and acquire the property. How is that going to happen?
I don't know who would build anything in the Quarry, but I remember the Peebles presentation saying it would be 7 to 10 years before it was even done. I would imagine that amount of time included all the legal challenges the antigrowth crowd would throw in the mix.
Other cities would court developers to work with them, our city asks why no one wants to dance with us. Go figure.
How is it going to happen? Like any other development happens.
The group that owns the Quarry (Ambit,) ideally in partnership with a new city council and Chamber of Commerce, goes out and pitches the property to a company like Simon Malls (who owns the Gilroy, Petaluma and Vacaville Premium outlet malls) to let them know there's a big, relatively inexpensive plot of ocean-front land just minutes south of SF available.
Outlet malls are doing pretty well, and from looking at some business reports on Simon Malls, they shouldn't have a problem getting financing.
The odds of an outlet mall being built in the Quarry are pretty low, but it's an example of the kind of destination retail that could work there. Perhaps we could revisit the idea of a casino in the Quarry, or maybe consider something like a Fry's. It needs to be something relatively unique, unlike a Walmart or Lowes, otherwise people won't drive past Serramonte to come here.
Anonymous @5:01 PM, why would you ask the question "who will build it?" That's what property owners and developers do. But, maybe the city has already contacted the property owner to present their new "unproductive open space plan". This question is outside even your self-acclaimed brilliance.
One of the reasons the no-growth crowd has been so successful in blocking things is that the city council was also no-growth, and they directed the city attorney and planning commission to block development.
Nothing is going to be built in the Quarry unless there's a new city council that actually cares about economic development, instead of the current business-hostile council that does all it can to quash economic development.
"Nothing is going to be built in the Quarry unless there's a new city council that actually cares about economic development, instead of the current business-hostile council that does all it can to quash economic development."
Steve said it. Now that comment is brilliant, and the concise reason to support 3 pro-economic candidates!
"One of the reasons the no-growth crowd has been so successful in blocking things is that the city council was also no-growth, and they directed the city attorney and planning commission to block development."
They all must go. City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Department, City Attorney, and HR/Finance Director. If Pacifica wants any hope of staying Pacifica.
Lionel makes a salient point about the housing and credit markets, but unfortunately he ignores the duration (and cost) in planning hell that is heaped on the backs of local developers. Harmony@1 and The Prospects were NOT casualties of the housing collapse. In any other city construction would have been completed before the market correction. Both developers spent 2-1/2 to 3 years trying to appease Pete Shoemaker, Nancy Hall, and John Curtis - the de facto planning commission - while having their projects sliced and diced.
Anonymous, you have the nerve to call Kathy dense!? All you do is criticize without offering any constructive ideas. Who is going to develop the quarry, or the old water treatment plant? Both prime coastal properties. Obviously, no developer will touch it with the present anti-development city council. Their previous failed attempts have earned them a notorious anti-development reputation. We therefore need to take the first step by replacing them with people proposing to achieve a more diversified tax base, which will entail reasonable demands and favorable conditions put forth to any potential developers. Who will these new people be? Given the horrible financial state of this city in the past decade, I am sure there will be several candidates offering a friendlier pro-development, balanced platform and vision. We will be able to identify them after Aug. 2.
As previously noted on this blog, the closest outlet mall going south is near Gilroy and going north is near Vacaville. Any reasonable developer can see the huge potential for profit not only from Bay area shoppers but also all the travelers going up and down HWY 1.
If we retain the status quo stance of our present council, making it very difficult for any new development, the taxes and fees will just keep rising adding to the already overburdened residential property owners. It won’t be long before we see more and more owners departing this beautiful city because they simply can’t afford to live here.
You are all-knowing.
Good luck with that.
What makes you think your "pro-development" candidates are any less arrogant than some of the current council and even more clueless about what to do. Interesting, when people have to actually work with government and NOT just pretend. Life IS "all-knowing" from the cheap seats. As said before, good luck with that.
In addition to Harmony@1 and The Prospects, don't forget the guy who tried to reopen Horizons. Digre, Lancelle, Vreeland and DeJarnatt jerked that guy around for over 3 years, until he ran out of money. Anywhere else in the Bay Area, that place would have been back in business within a few months.
Digre, Lancelle, Vreeland and DeJarnatt have destroyed Pacifica's economy, and they were doing it long before the recession hit.
Actually on this blog arrogance in another person could go absolutely unnoticed in this sea of arrogance. Your "candidates" will fit right in.
Anonymous @5:01PM, 5:59PM, you might consider what you intended to say wasn't that clear. A new city council would go a long way toward resolving the adverse anti-development reputation of this city as suggested by Marcus. And, I also view what Jeff said @7:02PM as correct. Change city council with 3 genuine pro-economy challengers, and put out a new sign "Open for Business".
Sour-grapes Anonymous @8:39PM and 8:46PM you may have no reason to be arrogant yourself. The financial failure issues of this city are clear enough and well known, as are the consequences.
Anonymous at 8:39 pm - What the heck does arrogance have to do with anything? Are you insinuating pro-developers and or anti-developers are by definition arrogant? That's a real stretch and has nothing to do with this discussion, at all. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
* You will never see an outlet mall in Pacifica for the same reasons you won't find retail outlets anywhere on the penninsula: retailers don't want the competition with their regular offerings. This is why outlet malls are located in BFE.
* You will never see a Walmart in Pacifica for the same reasons you won't find any on the Peninsula (save for Mountain View): the communites don't want them and have in some cases passed zoning ordinances specifically to prevent Walmarts from moving in. A Walmart is not seen as a boon to the community it occupies. Cheap, chinese-made crap that ruins local businesses, hires only part-time workers and is a historically known violator of labor regs? Why would you want this?!
* Most of our existing "malls" and store-front areas are in terrible shape. What in heaven's name would lead you to believe that a magical, mysticall super-mall at the quarry would be run any better?
We need to get our existing house in order before we think about adding extra rooms.
How about a Fresh & Easy Market. Oh wait never mind that was tried once before.
Anonymous, don't think that's the way business works, more begets more.
I repeat, “there are proponents of filling up the empty and unpopular developments we have now. However, they are empty and unpopular for a reason, not just the recession. In the restaurant industry, if an F&B concept is not working( i.e Mexican food vs. Thai) , the smart owner changes the concept. Eureka Square will never be successful as a retail sales mall, poor access and terrible signage”
Strategically an outlet mall in the quarry is the perfect location, and it is the only thing that has a chance of competing with Serramonte.
Think about why outlet malls are located out in the middle of nowhere and you'll realize why one will never be placed in Pacifica
"Strategically an outlet mall in the quarry is the perfect location"
Go ask "Simon Malls (who owns the Gilroy, Petaluma and Vacaville Premium outlet malls)" if they share that opinion.
I'm for anything where Vreeland can put on a hard hat and make a photo op out of it. It's truly "All About Jim", didn't you know that?
I am glad to see that some of you are really shooting for the stars with this one, e.g, outlet mall ("Vacaville with a view"), casino ("gamble your money away a la Don Peebles"),... Perhaps a 7-11 megastore? Meth cooking complex? Whorehouse? Pretty classy town with some pretty classy ideas. Guess some of you would prefer Pottersville to our little Bedford Falls. Personally, I would rather stay poor and cut local government costs substantially to balance the budget. Start by outsourcing the whole lot. Better than having to explain the hot pants brigade and meth teeth rot denizens of the new and solvent Pathetica to my babehs...
Geez, Anonymous @12:17PM, rather than just throwing-out "go ask someone about something"-- if you really know "something", unless you express what you know with back-up information, we won't know either. Beyond that, developers do various studies to determine what will work in an area, the demographics, etc.
Doing nothing, and not doing the studies never seems to work. Ask Pacifica City Council.
George, Pacifica is poor, budget is cut, the city infrastructure is failing, city debt is high-- outsource what, the entire city? You're probably right an outlet mall is probably the top of the aspiration list. Your alternative proposals are a little disappointing, probably no tax revenue.
"* You will never see an outlet mall in Pacifica for the same reasons you won't find retail outlets anywhere on the penninsula: retailers don't want the competition with their regular offerings. This is why outlet malls are located in BFE."
Not true. As long as what's sold in the outlet malls is at least six months out of fashion, retailers don't care if outlet malls are nearby. In fact, many big retail businesses don't view outlet malls as competition, but rather as a place to get rid of unsold inventory.
As for location, cheap land is one issue. I also read that outlet mall operators like the locations to be a little bit difficult to get to, because then the shoppers feel like they have to buy something to justify the trip.
As for asking Simon Malls whether they'd be interested in opening an outlet mall in the Quarry - at least asking and being told "no" is better than not asking at all.
Okay Steve, name a single outlet mall within 30 minutes of it's retail equivalent.
Anonymous, that question doesn't make sense, which indicates to me that you're guessing about how outlet malls operate.
At outlet malls, it's usually the brands that set up shop. For example, there are two large outlet malls at either end of the Las Vegas strip, and the stores within the outlet malls are run by companies like Nike, Converse, Adidas, Levi's, Sunglass Hut, Coach, and a bunch more.
I hope you're not trying to claim that the outlet malls are the only place in Las Vegas you can buy a pair of Nike's?
Post a Comment