Mith242

Fayetteville, Arkansas

Recommended Posts

Here's a follow up on a earlier discussion- the Street Committee has recommended widening Garland Avenue to four lanes between North Street and Melmar Drive with a median. This will extend the same type of design the portion of Garland south of North Street has and create a very attractive entrance to the city (assuming the same design will be extended out to I540 eventually). This will create a north-south corridor that when connected to the proposed Van Asche extension will improve access to the NWA Mall area. Since that area provides a large amount of the tax revenue that the city depends on it is important that it is easy to get to.

NWANews.com article

Cool, thanks for the update. It mentions a few more details I hadn't heard about like the median and bike lanes and such. I'm wondering though if the bike lanes and median will create a bit of controversy like it did for Crossover. But personally I like both ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Evidently the Fayetteville Forward Summit managed to ignore the elephant in the room- namely the proposed Walton Arts Center expansion. How an economic development meeting could not take into account a possible $180 million project in the center of town is stunning. The impact of the expansion and whether or not it even happens in Fayetteville should be on the top of any economic development list. The city leaders should be looking at doing a study on what economic impact the Walton Arts Center has on the city now, what impact the expansion happening 25 miles away would have and what impact it would have if built within the city.

A clear plan of action on keeping the expansion in town should be the priority of the Jordan administration until the final decision has been made. A package of incentives including a parking deck and a promise of close cooperation with the WAC needs to be put together. A clear signal that if the expansion is decided to be built outside of Fayetteville that the city and University will terminate the existing contract with the WAC and directly compete with the new facilty needs to be given. If the WAC decides to abandon Fayetteville then Mayor Jordan should be a the front of a drive to make sure that Fayetteville retains it's place as the entertainment and cultural center of the region.

If the only response is to say that it is up to the Walton family then that defeatist attitude will clearly show the lack of leadership that Fayetteville has elected to office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently one thing discussed Saturday that I hadn't heard mentioned at the Thursday night meeting is having more funds set up as a incentive fund to help lure more companies to Fayetteville. Sounds like Fayetteville tries to hold around $1 Mil for something like this and now they may try to increase it to $5 Mil. I was a little surprised to hear how so many people keep pushing for a light rail system. I'm not surprised to hear it get mentioned but more the fact of just how many people keep pushing for it. I've also been curious as to whether other NWA cities are pushing as much for a light rail system or if Fayetteville is mainly the ones pushing for it. I'd be curious to know how the other NWA communities view the idea. If it's something they seriously want to fight for or it they think it's a nice idea but aren't going to bother with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently the Fayetteville Forward Summit managed to ignore the elephant in the room- namely the proposed Walton Arts Center expansion. How an economic development meeting could not take into account a possible $180 million project in the center of town is stunning. The impact of the expansion and whether or not it even happens in Fayetteville should be on the top of any economic development list. The city leaders should be looking at doing a study on what economic impact the Walton Arts Center has on the city now, what impact the expansion happening 25 miles away would have and what impact it would have if built within the city.

A clear plan of action on keeping the expansion in town should be the priority of the Jordan administration until the final decision has been made. A package of incentives including a parking deck and a promise of close cooperation with the WAC needs to be put together. A clear signal that if the expansion is decided to be built outside of Fayetteville that the city and University will terminate the existing contract with the WAC and directly compete with the new facilty needs to be given. If the WAC decides to abandon Fayetteville then Mayor Jordan should be a the front of a drive to make sure that Fayetteville retains it's place as the entertainment and cultural center of the region.

If the only response is to say that it is up to the Walton family then that defeatist attitude will clearly show the lack of leadership that Fayetteville has elected to office.

Yeah that does surprise me, that the WAC situation wasn't discussed more at the meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that does surprise me, that the WAC situation wasn't discussed more at the meetings.

Surprising is the word- I did hear others talking about how they wanted to see more cultural events like last week's National Symphony Orchestra in Fayetteville. That is exactly the type of event that won't come to Fayetteville if the expansion happens elsewhere. Because of the ticket revenue alone those concerts and major shows will happen elsewhere. It was stated at the summit that when businesses look to locate somewhere these type of cultural events are one of the things that they look at- so they would be looking north of here I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently the Fayetteville Forward Summit managed to ignore the elephant in the room- namely the proposed Walton Arts Center expansion. How an economic development meeting could not take into account a possible $180 million project in the center of town is stunning. The impact of the expansion and whether or not it even happens in Fayetteville should be on the top of any economic development list. The city leaders should be looking at doing a study on what economic impact the Walton Arts Center has on the city now, what impact the expansion happening 25 miles away would have and what impact it would have if built within the city.

A clear plan of action on keeping the expansion in town should be the priority of the Jordan administration until the final decision has been made. A package of incentives including a parking deck and a promise of close cooperation with the WAC needs to be put together. A clear signal that if the expansion is decided to be built outside of Fayetteville that the city and University will terminate the existing contract with the WAC and directly compete with the new facilty needs to be given. If the WAC decides to abandon Fayetteville then Mayor Jordan should be a the front of a drive to make sure that Fayetteville retains it's place as the entertainment and cultural center of the region.

If the only response is to say that it is up to the Walton family then that defeatist attitude will clearly show the lack of leadership that Fayetteville has elected to office.

I completely agree. That would have been the first thing I brought up, and SHOULD be at the forefront of Fayetteville's short-term concerns. The WAC is going to have to do something soon, whether it be expand or move, and Fayetteville better be fully prepared to keep it here no matter what.

The WAC singlehandedly revived the downtown area, which in turn helped revive Fayetteville. Now, its taken for granted, and strong anti-development crowd doesn't want to discuss more major changes in the Dickson/downtown area.

I guess all the no-change old-timers will be happy when Dickson is a ghost street again if the WAC moves on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mostly hoping for more concrete info from the city. I had expected some of the recent studies to be discussed. They very well may be at some point. I'm not trying to slam the meeting or anything. I'm sure there will be many people who really liked it. They tried to get everyone to pair up with someone who has different views than your own. Then you got moved again to another group of people. I was curious to find out more about the people at first table I was sitting at and never did. I think I can see what they were trying to accomplish and such. But it just wasn't really what I was looking for. I've been to other meetings and charettes and such that tend to do some things along these lines. I just wish the entire first meeting wasn't set up like this. The end part of the meeting your last table of people had to construct their 'dream tree' with supplies there at the meeting. I'm sure some people really got into that. But I didn't really go to the meeting to see how creative people could be in a limited amount of time. But I imagine a lot of people would be bored with my style of hard facts and concrete information and such. If I don't attend the second meeting I'm sure I'll miss out on some things I would like to see. But I have no idea what part of the meeting will have those things. I don't want to sit around 8-9 hours tomorrow doing similar things I did last night. No offense to anyone. I do at least feel there will probably be other people there who will represent views I agree with. Alternative transit/mass transit and such was touched on by every group of people I believe. There were also a number of people who talked about smart growth and limiting sprawl and such. I guess I just wish I knew what part of the meeting tomorrow I would most appreciate and attend that part. It sounded like they had originally hoped for at least 200 to 250 people to attend the first phase meetings. But as I said earlier looks like that number will be more around 400-500. Which is also why they moved the second meeting so they could have someplace for everyone. I'd be interested in hearing from someone if they attend the second meeting. I guess I may just have to watch for it on local tv. They filmed last night's meeting and I'm sure they'll film the second meeting as well.

I'm a little late on responding to this. I definitely agree with the idea of getting public input, who couldn't. However, like you said there were other meetings and charettes like this one. I was really hoping during the meeting that there would be some reassurances about the effectiveness of their style. There may be some good research that says these kind of meetings are effective, but I was hoping to hear that. Otherwise, it feels like an unjustified 3rd grade exercise. Should we make hand puppets that say what we want?

Anyways, it's not only the style, but sometimes I like a little more guidance including hints on what are some major issues/ideas. I don't want to get a visual preference presentation in which I decide that a pristine looking flower garden looks better than extra sidewalk space. I also don't like just one way to share my ideas, but several options because I can't make every meeting time they decide on and there is limited time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little late on responding to this. I definitely agree with the idea of getting public input, who couldn't. However, like you said there were other meetings and charettes like this one. I was really hoping during the meeting that there would be some reassurances about the effectiveness of their style. There may be some good research that says these kind of meetings are effective, but I was hoping to hear that. Otherwise, it feels like an unjustified 3rd grade exercise. Should we make hand puppets that say what we want?

Anyways, it's not only the style, but sometimes I like a little more guidance including hints on what are some major issues/ideas. I don't want to get a visual preference presentation in which I decide that a pristine looking flower garden looks better than extra sidewalk space. I also don't like just one way to share my ideas, but several options because I can't make every meeting time they decide on and there is limited time.

I have to agree with you. I've forgotten her name now, but anyway she seems to have built up a good reputation setting up meetings like this in other cities. But I really preferred the method used by Dover-Kohl at the City Plan 2025 meetings. Sure there were some instances where you had to get together with a group of people and such. But I felt we accomplished more there. We weren't making 'dream trees' and such. There also more of a presentation with examples of New Urbanism and such as well. It sounds like over 400 people attended the second phase so it seems there must be people who liked that style. Otherwise why show up for an 8 hours meeting on a weekend day? But it just really wasn't my thing. If a lot of Fayetteville citizens like that type of meeting and that's what it takes to get them out then so be it. This won't turn me off future city meetings and such. But I probably will be more hesitant and expect as much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought:

Why doesn't the city narrow Center St. between College and the Square down to one lane, change up the parking, put in wider sidewalks, trees and lighting?

The street carries "one lane" worth of traffic mostly anyway. Wider sidewalks and landscaping could extend the Square's atmosphere out to College Avenue there. I think the same thing could be done to Mountain street one block South and it would really make a great pedestrian area, effectively enlarging the Square in the process.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be all for "extending" the square setup/atmosphere but when you do that you confuse people. We have only a small handful of one-way roads near the square and I still talk to people who hate to drive there because of those. I like them, I think they are great and do more for an area but many people just hate them. Not sure what the overall consensus is/would be but there is problems with having more one-way roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought:

Why doesn't the city narrow Center St. between College and the Square down to one lane, change up the parking, put in wider sidewalks, trees and lighting?

The street carries "one lane" worth of traffic mostly anyway. Wider sidewalks and landscaping could extend the Square's atmosphere out to College Avenue there. I think the same thing could be done to Mountain street one block South and it would really make a great pedestrian area, effectively enlarging the Square in the process.

Thoughts?

Parking.

I'm not saying the idea isn't good, however until more parking is established in the area, IMO its nearly impossible to take any away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought:

Why doesn't the city narrow Center St. between College and the Square down to one lane, change up the parking, put in wider sidewalks, trees and lighting?

The street carries "one lane" worth of traffic mostly anyway. Wider sidewalks and landscaping could extend the Square's atmosphere out to College Avenue there. I think the same thing could be done to Mountain street one block South and it would really make a great pedestrian area, effectively enlarging the Square in the process.

Thoughts?

It's an interesting idea. Honestly the same could be said with a number of one way streets around the Square area. I do remember the Dover-Kohl group mentioning that one way streets should be done away with. While the city has changed some over others remain one way. Not sure if the city plans to eventually change some of the others, particularly around the Square. The Square really complicates things. It's hard to see a number of those streets as two way unless you change the Square. Then to do that you'd have to take away quite a bit of the parking on the Square. I guess my biggest concern if we were to try something like you suggested is taking away parking on those streets. A large parking deck in the vicinity of the Square would be a big help. Then that would free things up to make some changes like what you've suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like City Aldermen will be picking their top 15 favorite ideas of the 38 priorities mentioned at the Fayetteville Forward meetings. I'm curious if the selection will be made public. I don't know if how these rank with other ideas mentioned at the meeting. But apparently transportation rated 10.7% by people at the meetings, economic development 9.3%, communication and diversity 8.9% and sidewalks and public trails 7.3%. There's also talk of eventually setting up a Fayetteville Forward Economic Accountability Council. The city also wants to set up an online site to keep discussions and ideas flowing along with sharing info and documents about the city. Perhaps they'll try to expand the current Fayetteville website. They'll also be looking more into setting aside the $5Mil mentioned at the Fayetteville Forward meetings for the mayor to provide incentives for future companies to locate here. Sounds like the city is looking for an external entity to help attract future businesses that emphasize the green industry, health care industry, hospitality, tourism and entertainment and the arts. Maybe something like the Fayetteville Economic Development Council. Looks like the city also soon looking to establish a team to help promote the future Fayetteville millage for the high school. The city is also looking to setting up a Buy Fayetteville campaign as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like City Aldermen will be picking their top 15 favorite ideas of the 38 priorities mentioned at the Fayetteville Forward meetings. I'm curious if the selection will be made public. I don't know if how these rank with other ideas mentioned at the meeting. But apparently transportation rated 10.7% by people at the meetings, economic development 9.3%, communication and diversity 8.9% and sidewalks and public trails 7.3%. There's also talk of eventually setting up a Fayetteville Forward Economic Accountability Council. The city also wants to set up an online site to keep discussions and ideas flowing along with sharing info and documents about the city. Perhaps they'll try to expand the current Fayetteville website. They'll also be looking more into setting aside the $5Mil mentioned at the Fayetteville Forward meetings for the mayor to provide incentives for future companies to locate here. Sounds like the city is looking for an external entity to help attract future businesses that emphasize the green industry, health care industry, hospitality, tourism and entertainment and the arts. Maybe something like the Fayetteville Economic Development Council. Looks like the city also soon looking to establish a team to help promote the future Fayetteville millage for the high school. The city is also looking to setting up a Buy Fayetteville campaign as well.

The Fayetteville Forward Summit was great for getting input from the public but it shouldn't be used as the primary means of setting priorities by the council. Only a small percentage of the city's population showed up at summit and the council represents all of the residents in the city. Special interests groups were well represented at the summit and had a much larger influence on what was decided than what they make of in population of the city. They will also dominate the discussion on the city website if it is used as a prmary means of gettng public input.

The city council and mayor office were elected to represent all of Fayetteville and not just the most outspoken groups. They need to used all the information sources available to them in making policy- not just a small proportion of the city residents.

Edited by zman9810

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are some of the taller buildings proposed for NWA???

Whats the deal with not wanting to go vertical?

Before the economy tanked there had been talk of several projects. Although even if the economy had continued I doubt they all would have been built. The tallest was an 18 story hotel near the Square. There had also been talk of some smaller developments along Dickson St. There also had been plans for several buildings in north Fayetteville. Most of those had story's around the low teens area. But I probably only expect to hear possibly about the 18 story Renaissance in downtown even when the economy gets better.

In general I think there's a rather vocal group who want to keep Fayetteville more like a 'small town'. The same people who don't want I-540 more than 4 lanes and don't want tall buildings. There are some who even want zero growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the topic discussing the building projects proposed for NWA although many have not been built. I wonder myself why so many people are against taller buildings. For some I think they want the illusion of living in a small village while having the amenities of a larger urban area. Some even want the feel of living in the country while being in the city. Some have came from larger urban areas and associate tall buildings with the urban ills of crime, traffic and the general crowding that can occur and that they moved to get away from although adding taller buildings can be a way to avoid some of those affects.

In the growing area of NWA the options some have decided on are to not grow vertically and add density but to sprawl further out into the countryside or to severely restrict any growth at all. While many areas of the country would love to have the problem of dealing with growth instead of a declining economic climate some in NWA and especially Fayetteville want to put up a wall around the area and only let a special few enter. Hopefully as the national economy recovers and pressure builds to grow again the advantages of vertical growth by infill and redevelopment and the creation of more dense neighborhoods will be seen.

NWA Building Master List

Edited by zman9810

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to the topic discussing the building projects proposed for NWA although many have not been built. I wonder myself why so many people are against taller buildings. For some I think they want the illusion of living in a small village while having the amenities of a larger urban area. Some even want the feel of living in the country while being in the city. Some have came from larger urban areas and associate tall buildings with the urban ills of crime, traffic and the general crowding that can occur and that they moved to get away from although adding taller buildings can be a way to avoid some of those affects.

In the growing area of NWA the options some have decided on are to not grow vertically and add density but to sprawl further out into the countryside or to severely restrict any growth at all. While many areas of the country would love to have the problem of dealing with growth instead of a declining economic climate some in NWA and especially Fayetteville want to put up a wall around the area and only let a special few enter. Hopefully as the national economy recovers and pressure builds to grow again the advantages of vertical growth by infill and redevelopment and the creation of more dense neighborhoods will be seen.

NWA Building Master List

Yeah just at the Fayetteville Forward meeting, that seemed to be the view of a number of people. They want 'big city amenities' but at the same time a 'small town feel'. But keeping buildings down means they have to spread out. Sprawl has also been a concern for a number of residents as well. Seems like people are going to have to lean one way or the other. Either that or do like you said basically keep any new people and growth out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed something while I was gone last week. But sounds like there could be problems with the future parking deck at the Washington County Courthouse. From what I've gathered someone is complaining the bidding process wasn't fair. Not sure if this could end up slowing down or even halting the construction process. Anybody have a little more info on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed something while I was gone last week. But sounds like there could be problems with the future parking deck at the Washington County Courthouse. From what I've gathered someone is complaining the bidding process wasn't fair. Not sure if this could end up slowing down or even halting the construction process. Anybody have a little more info on this?

Sounds like a real mess- so what's new? The way I remember it the contract for the deck was done the same way the county jail was done. If I remember right it was called construction management or something close to that and enabled the projects to keep the same contractor that was used before in order to speed things up and make the process more effcient. It was legal but now state law may have made it not legal. In the mean time the broke parking deck will sit mostly unusable, the public will be inconvinenced, money and time will be spent fighting it out in court and if it drags on long enough the cost of the project will probably rise more. Whoever is really behind the suit can pat themselves on the back- way to look out for the public good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a real mess- so what's new? The way I remember it the contract for the deck was done the same way the county jail was done. If I remember right it was called construction management or something close to that and enabled the projects to keep the same contractor that was used before in order to speed things up and make the process more efficient. It was legal but now state law may have made it not legal. In the mean time the broke parking deck will sit mostly unusable, the public will be inconvenienced, money and time will be spent fighting it out in court and if it drags on long enough the cost of the project will probably rise more. Whoever is really behind the suit can pat themselves on the back- way to look out for the public good.

Funny how things seem to work this way for Fayetteville. But yeah it's a real big inconvenience. I've dreaded having to try to go do anything at the courthouse. I guess we just have to hope this doesn't drag out for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fayetteville Forward Summit was great for getting input from the public but it shouldn't be used as the primary means of setting priorities by the council. Only a small percentage of the city's population showed up at summit and the council represents all of the residents in the city. Special interests groups were well represented at the summit and had a much larger influence on what was decided than what they make of in population of the city. They will also dominate the discussion on the city website if it is used as a prmary means of gettng public input.

The city council and mayor office were elected to represent all of Fayetteville and not just the most outspoken groups. They need to used all the information sources available to them in making policy- not just a small proportion of the city residents.

If you don't support the Fayetteville Forward Summit as a means to a plan, why would you support the Dover/Kohl 2025 plan? Dover was attended by a much more select smaller group and the ideas to expound upon were fed to you by the planners. It would seem to me that the summit with the input of a larger more diverse group is a better representation of the direction Fayetteville wants to proceed.

The state of the current economic downturn will also be a huge determining factor in future development ideals.

Light rail is not being driven by the desire for a more dense urban city center, conversely it is being heralded by the need for people to reduce their need for money consuming transportation, the end result is the same but the determining factors are driven by a more diverse need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't support the Fayetteville Forward Summit as a means to a plan, why would you support the Dover/Kohl 2025 plan? Dover was attended by a much more select smaller group and the ideas to expound upon were fed to you by the planners. It would seem to me that the summit with the input of a larger more diverse group is a better representation of the direction Fayetteville wants to proceed.

The state of the current economic downturn will also be a huge determining factor in future development ideals.

Light rail is not being driven by the desire for a more dense urban city center, conversely it is being heralded by the need for people to reduce their need for money consuming transportation, the end result is the same but the determining factors are driven by a more diverse need.

Comparing the Fayetteville Forward Summit's so-called economic plan with the City Plan 2025 is comparing apples and oranges. The Fayetteville Forward Summit was a political event put on by the Jordan adminstration to fulfill a campaign promise and to try to validate the ideas they already had. City Plan 2025 is an award winning comprehensive land use plan for the entire city. Using professional consultants to guide the process is a much more desirable way create government plans than using construction paper and scissors to make idea "trees". Public input is needed in the planning process but the average citizen doesn't have the resources to be able to put it all together.

I'n not sure what you mean by the statement "Light rail is not being driven by the desire for a more dense urban city center" as applied to what I've said. The point I've made about light rail in Fayetteville and NWA is that we lack the density and population in order for it to be feasible. Until the local governments change their land use policies to encourage/dictate greater density, light rail will not work. The use of zoning ordinances discouraging sprawl and variable impact fees that encourage infill and redevelopment would be a start. The federal government would take one look at the way NWA has sprawled out and put it's money elsewhere. The local area and state certainly will not have the funds to finance light rail.

Fayetteville and the University could pool their resources for a short rail line in the campus area but it would compete with the existing bus service more than supplement it. The idea of a trolley down Dickson Street is attractive on the surface but the disruption to the businesses along the street would cause a lot of opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Light rail is not being driven by the desire for a more dense urban city center, conversely it is being heralded by the need for people to reduce their need for money consuming transportation, the end result is the same but the determining factors are driven by a more diverse need.

This is false.

Light rail, at the low rates it would be ridden in NWA, would by much more expensive per person than what we currently have. I think in many people's minds, "the government" is going to pay for light rail, so in a sense, its "free". Not so.

People are not going to choose to ride light rail, given the limited places it would take you in NWA, when you can just get in your car and drive. The environmental advantages of light rail with regards to emissions are going to become less and less significant over the next 20 years to almost be negligible as low-emission automobile technology improves.

People have a low cost alternative already, and hardly anybody rides it. Its called ORT. Until someone can demonstrate demand for public transportation in NWA, light rail is never going to be anything than a hippie utopian fantasy.

Sure, trains are cool. Having trains in NWA would be cool. I can understand that. What I can't understand is how there are so many people here who are incapable of applying the most basic critical analysis to the issue and see how it really isn't feasible or needed in NWA.

Its kind of a funny paradox. The people who seem to want light rail the most are the people most aghast at the idea of NWA become a dense urban center of 1-1.5 million people, yet that density and population increase is the only scenario that would make light rail even partially feasible in our metro. You can't have one without the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't build where we are today. Build where we will be tomorrow. Light rail will work in Northwest Arkansas. The time to commit is now.

The historical growth of the region was based on, and centered on the railroad. Development and people in the region today largely move North-South to and from their jobs and shopping along a relatively narrow corridor within a short distance along the historical railroad tracks, I-540, and 71B, just as they did 80 years ago. There are just a bunch more people - with more almost certain to come over the next twenty years.

I traveled north on Crossover from Fayetteville to Springdale yesterday during rush hour and was astonished by the long line of rush hour traffic heading south, stringing along at bumper-to-bumber speeds, with each vehicle containing just one occupant. The amount of wasted energy, resources, not to mention wasted time and pollution and greenhouse gasses was as bad as any big city. How many lanes do we need to add to Crossover this year? In five years? Ten years? Twenty years?

Based on the region's geography and development patterns, light rail presents just one, but nevertheless extremely viable, cost-effective option for moving people around.

In any scenario, we cannot continue to add lanes to I-540. We need choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.