Affordable Housing

Liberal Policies vs. Affordable Housing

The chronic shortage of inexpensive housing is really a blaring signal for government to get out of the way.


Julian Castro is a smiling bundle of energy whose past includes being mayor of San Antonio and whose future may include a spot on a national Democratic ticket—say, as a nicely balanced running mate for a presidential nominee who is a white female from New York. Right now, though, he is secretary of Housing and Urban Development, or what he calls "the Department of Opportunity."

As that label suggests, Castro is a staunch believer in the value of government involvement in the housing market. He came to Chicago recently to tout the many ways in which Washington can allegedly be a positive force on behalf of affordable housing and thriving communities.

In theory, that is not impossible. But in practice, it seldom works out well. In medicine, the term "iatrogenic" refers to diseases that are caused by doctors or medications. The housing problems that governments decry are often problems that governments create. Liberals devise remedies for ills that are most prevalent where liberals hold power.

Among Castro's priorities is the "affordable housing crisis." He laments that 7.7 million low-income Americans who get no government help either spend more than half their income on rent or occupy substandard housing. One of his curatives is a federal program that "allows public housing agencies to leverage public and private debt and equity in order to reinvest in the public housing stock."

Maybe that will do some good. But when it comes to fostering a larger supply of less expensive housing, as Ronald Reagan would have put it, government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

This is especially true at the local level. One reason red states attract so many migrants from blue states is that they have an abundant supply of relatively inexpensive residential buildings.

You can get a lot more house for your money in Houston or Phoenix than in San Francisco or Boston. A big reason is that it's a lot easier to construct homes and subdivisions in states that engage in less regulation of development—which, being less enamored of regulation, tend to vote Republican.

This pattern is not a matter of speculation. Economist Jed Kolko sorted dozens of cities by how they voted for president in 2012 and found that "none of the 10 reddest markets had a median asking price per square foot above $130 in September of 2014. But nine of the bluest markets did."

The peculiarity is not hard to explain. Residents of liberal places, almost by definition, are more inclined to support tight curbs on development.

Last year, San Franciscans approved a ballot measure requiring voter approval of any new building on a 7-mile stretch of waterfront if it exceeds current (and generally low) height limits—which is a perfect way to block an expansion of residential housing in a large chunk of the city.

They confirmed the observation of Matt Yglesias, who wrote in Slate in 2013 that since the city lacks vacant land, "you either build up or you just don't build. And the preference, apparently, is to not build." That's why San Francisco has the highest housing costs in America. New York is almost as bad, and for similar reasons.

But they are hardly unique. Research by economists Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Joseph Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania indicated that "homes are expensive in high-cost areas primarily because of government regulation" that imposes "artificial limits on construction."

Not that big cities teeming with Democrats are the only sinners. In many suburbs in red states, Gyourko told me, zoning rules make it easy to build single-family detached houses on small lots. What's not easy is to put up townhouses and apartment buildings—whose construction costs, on a per-dwelling basis, are much lower. Blocking high-density units serves, deliberately or not, to keep out lower-income people by making these areas unaffordable.

The feds are also partly to blame. The biggest federal housing "program" is the tax deductibility of mortgage interest, which effectively has the perverse effect of pushing up home prices in the places that are most expensive already. Ending that subsidy would lower real estate costs in affluent cities, to the advantage of those who have been squeezed out.

The chronic shortage of inexpensive housing is taken by Castro and other liberals to mean that government bodies have to do more. It's really a blaring signal for them to get out of the way.

NEXT: Gangs in Control of America's Prisons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Everything that will do that sit back and watch signal? Definitely really that rado replica sale precious time through no time (using that tourbillon) together with a potential preserve gauge. Left belonging to the barrels can be a few making percussion which will signal the force omega replica sale preserve in what is an important drum in the time start, and a second in the days less than.

    1. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      1. This bot looks new, is it?

        1. Bot? I just figured it was some liberal quoting Krugman in favor of the government’s affordable housing policies.

          1. There is a subtle difference between organic word salad and artificial word salad. This is artificial word salad. It’s less painful on the brain.

            1. Gucci Mane would be best buddies with that spambot, maybe they should write some lyrics together in their spare time:…..try-lyrics

          2. It’s not an ordinary bot.

            It’s Palins Buttplug without his talking points.

    2. I think I speak for everyone when I say: Da fuq?

      1. I’m not clicking on those links! See the time of the comment? That’s before this article was even posted! This bot is a time traveller.

        1. Is this a clue in the FoE mystery of constant firsts?

          1. FoE IS A BOT?!?!?!?! TRUE AI HAS BEEN ACHIEVED!!!!

            *hides under desk*

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    1. Lee, a British-educated lawyer, is credited with building Singapore into one of the world’s wealthiest nations on a per capita basis with a strong, pervasive role for the state and little patience for dissent.

      He was unapologetic for clamping down fiercely on his opponents, saying it was essential for the country’s security.

      “We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communists, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don’t do that, the country would be in ruins,” he said in 1986.

      Among other hardline measures, long hair for men was outlawed in the 1970s – the Bee Gees and Led Zeppelin canceled gigs due to the ban – and the sale of chewing gum remains forbidden. Graffiti is punishable by caning.

      1. “and the sale of chewing gum remains forbidden.”

        As I recall, the reason for the ban was that there were SO many people who would dispose of their gum on the street or sidewalk wherever they happened to be at the time – instead of folding into a wrapper and throwing it away in a trashcan later – that it became a real problem.

        1. I heard it was so many people sticking their gum on the edge of the doors to the subway trains. The trains got shut down so many times that the government said, “Okay, no more chewing gum”.

          I heard right.

          1. In his memoirs,[2] Lee Kuan Yew recounted that as early as 1983, when he was still serving as Prime Minister, a proposal for the ban was brought up to him by the then Minister for National Development. Chewing gum was causing serious maintenance problems in high-rise public housing flats, with vandals disposing of spent gum in mailboxes, inside keyholes and even on elevator buttons. Chewing gum left on the ground, stairways and pavements in public areas increased the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment. Gum stuck on the seats of public buses was also considered a problem. However, Lee thought that a ban would be “too drastic” and did not take action.

            In 1987, the S$5 billion metro system, the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), started running. It was then the largest public project ever implemented in Singapore, and expectations were high. One of the champions of the project, Ong Teng Cheong, who later became the first democratically-elected President, declared,”? the MRT will usher in a new phase in Singapore’s development and bring about a better life for all of us.”

            It was then reported that vandals had begun sticking chewing gum on the door sensors of MRT trains, preventing doors from functioning properly and causing disruption to train services. Such incidents were rare but costly and culprits were difficult to apprehend. In January 1992, Goh Chok Tong, who had just taken over as Prime Minister, decided on a ban. [citation needed]

            1. Lee Kuan Yew was a son of a bitch, but you have to had it to him in that separating Singapore from Saudi Arabia’s Asian annex was the best thing he could have done for the country.

              1. “Lee Kuan Yew was a son of a bitch…”

                Should your name really be “Heroic Malay”?


                1. Heavens no!

                  “Heroic Tamil” would be closer to where some of the root of the family tree lie. The British really did love to dump various populations on tropical islands just to see what would happen, didn’t they?

      2. NPR did a piece on this guy. They were practically giddy with the implication that totalitarianism is good for the economy.

    2. Lee Kuan Yew – the 20th Century’s Solon.

  2. Is it me, or does it seem the spambot employers fired their semi-English-literate worker from Cote D’Ivoire, because on paper it seemed cheaper to hire someone in rural China who is entirely incapable of reading English at all, and is just plucking random words from the article and running them through a dodgy, poorly pirated knockoff English-to-Mandarin translator, tossing in links to their client’s website, and then running that hot mess back through the translator to further randomize it?

    1. I, for one, eagerly await Agile Cyborg’s dialog with the new bot.

  3. But when it comes to fostering a larger supply of less expensive housing, as Ronald Reagan would have put it, government is not the solution.
    See, you’re falling for the error of believing that liberals like Castro want to be “a positive force on behalf of affordable housing” when what they really want to be is a positive force on behalf of affordable housing somewhere else. I thought it was common knowledge that liberals love people as a group but hate them as individuals whereas conservatives love individuals but hate groups. That’s why liberals love ‘the poor’ but don’t want any actual poor people near them whereas conservatives hate ‘the poor’ but spend lots of time with individual poors doing business with them. Sam Walton knew a hell of a lot more poor people than Julian Castro, and I would suggest Walmart could provide a hell of a lot more affordable housing than HUD.

    1. “I would suggest Walmart could provide a hell of a lot more affordable housing than HUD.”

      Just like Sears used to sell a whole home-in-a-kit – I can only imagine how cool a Wal-Mart home in a box would be.

      1. Affordable, low frills, and likely to start falling apart in, say, ten years?

        1. Ten Months, an unable to hold out the prevailing inlcement weather for the location. The poor quality of WalMart goods is the biggest reason I decided never to go back there again. Their ‘low’ prices proved to be a false economy given the more frequent replacement requirements.

        2. Currently living in a Sears kit home built in 1932. Aside from standard maintenance and the usual settling, weird electrical, and other issues common to older houses. Yeah, it’s tough to find a 90 degree angle in here, but considering I live on a glorified sandbar it’s a sturdy old pile.

          Sears caught on to some important truths with these suckers:

          1. It’s easier to control the cost of materials than the cost of labor.

          2. A “craftsman” bungalow ain’t that complicated, and for most of human history people have been building things like them on their own.

          3. Typically, people with limited funds have an easier time finding extra time and labor, and are willing to do so.

          1. How dare you build your own abode, the most noble of all human endeavors. Think of all the governmental bureaucrats and skilled union professionals you’ll be putting out of work by doing that?

            Don’t even think of it!

      2. And cheap! I think the lack of innovation in how homes are built in the 21st century is yet another problem that we can attribute to government (i.e. zoning laws).

        1. No shit. I looked into building a house on a steep slope, and while it was fun coming up with a design of sorts, when I talked to real architects about turning it into real house plans, the building codes took all the fun out of it and effectively would have required huge retaining walls to protect huge artificial flats, and owuld have been more expensive and less safe / stable.

      3. A self-assembled double-wide? Oh yeah, sign me up.

    2. The only thing HUD accomplishes is crowding other sources of funding for multi-family residential development.

      1. It is also pretty effective as squandering taxpayer’s money.

        Okay, it’s not DoD, but HUD does its part.

        And, according to Krugman, that’s a good thing.

  4. The thing is, I’m not sure I object to local government zoning regulations, at least in theory. I object to the plain and fancy lying that gets done about them, but what can you do? These are politicians. Telling the truth too often is a violation of their religion. Local government is close by enough that if it screws up it will have a hundred annoyed citizens in its parking lot, telling it so in no uncertain terms. The people in San Francisco and New York may whine about the high cost of housing, but at some level they obviously want it. That or they re too stupid to be worth worrying about.

    But at the Federal level, I start having questions. Questions like, what idiot thought he could come up with a housing “policy” that would fit New York, Cleveland, and West Nowhere Nevada? Just what obscure part of the Constitution and its amendments gives them the authority to even have an opinion on the subject? Are all the Foreign Policy, National Defense, Interstate Roadway, and Mail Delivery issues so thoroughly solved that we really have time for this crap?

    1. I have a problem with local zoning. In theory there are protections for property owners to enjoy their property however they see fit. In practice, towns have nearly unlimited ability to regulate through zoning in a manner that verges on tyranny by the majority, or a pesky homeowners association with stupid bylaws.

      Just imagine, some pearl clutcher finds out that you are reloading ammo in your garage. She files a complaint with the zoning commission, they hold a hearing, and presto, 8 weeks later it is illegal to melt lead and handle gunpowder in a residential zone and you’re getting daily citations. I for one would like to see more limitations in what a zoning ordinance can regulate.

      1. Yeah, the biggest requirement I had when I bought a house was that I not be subject to a HOA, but since I’m in a city (well, a town really) I’m subject to the slightly-less-shitty-but-nevertheless-annoying city zoning rules. I’m going to guess I suffer more harm vis a vis property value from the public housing complex two blocks away than any overlarge fence that any of my neighbors might erect.

        I find that local regulations are often more oppressive and petty simply because they deal with immediate, personal issues, such as how high your fence can be or what you can do to your house. The people who get involved in this stuff tend to be the exact sort of people you don’t want involved in your life: nosy neighbor types who want to use the law to enforce their preferences on everyone around them.

        1. Even worse than standard city zoning ordinances are cities that have “historic preservation zones” where you aren’t allowed to do anything to the outside of your house without kissing the ring finger of a bunch of construction industry insiders on a local board who will give you hell for things like replacing your windows, repairing your roof, etc. and you have to cough up $250 every time you want to meet with the board to get approval for something.

          These people are fucking evil. It’s all arbitrary — “Oh I don’t think THAT kind of fence is really appropriate for THIS neighborhood.” and they can give a different opinion every time you are in front of them. You end up with only rich people living in the neighborhood because they are the only ones who can afford to comply with all of these rules.

          I would *never* move into one of those houses.

          1. FWIW, the people who live in them seem to love it just fine. Especially when they sell.

      2. In theory there are protections for property owners to enjoy their property however they see fit. In practice,

        In practice, what I see happen on a basis so regular it must be the intended consequence, is that zoning is set up so that anytime anyone wants to do any development, it requires exceptions, which means going to the city and begging and greasing the skids. This typically run roughshod over the community plans and community organizations *that were created specifically for neighborhood residents to have a say in developments that affect them*. The process is so corrupt I find myself oddly on the side of wishing zoning would be more vigorously enforced (but enforced more consistently, not making an exception every time there is a developer willing to play the game).

    2. Local zoning regs are among the most egregious violations of liberty in the country. Just because they’re “local” doesn’t make them good.

      I can see the benefit to barebones commercial/residential/industrial and public safety zoning — you don’t want a glue factory next to houses, for example — but beyond that?Restrictions on the type of commercial activity you can do (retail only, no office space, etc.), the style of your house or your paint job, most height restrictions, “historical” zones, etc., are utter bull.

  5. Look. Housing regulations are not intended to raise the price of housing, so they can’t be to blame. It must be markets. Yeah, free markets. That’s the problem. If anything we need more government to counter the problems created by those greedy capitalists who are gouging renters. It’s their fault. It couldn’t be government because intentions.

    1. I find the modern “liberal” to be ironic in the most fundamental of ways. The left wing are a collection of by far the most inertial, conservative, and bland groups of voters and politicians. It makes me wonder why they’ve traditionally appealed so much to people my age (early 20s). Based on my little knowledge of US history, it seems that their talking points have been unchanged since the 80s: war on women, war on minorities, war on welfare/food stamps, single-payer is better, war on abortion, peak oil, global warming – climate change, inequality, etc.

      1. They appeal to emotions, not reason. So their stances don’t have to be rational. All they need to do is stir up feelings of unfairness and envy, and they get instant support from people who feel instead of think. Which, unfortunately, is most people.

        1. Emoting instead of thinking… this also explains why many of their talking points fit so well into slogans and memes (no wonder BuzzFeed is such a strong Team Blue compound). Much, much easier to condense outrage into 5 or 10 words than to make a logical statement in a similar amount of words.

          1. Notice that their rebuttals almost always take the form of attacking the person they are arguing with, not what the person actually says. They feel that by doing this they defeat the person’s argument, as if they are in court trying to discredit a witness. Then they sit back all smug and declare victory. It’s one of the many fallacies that the left embraces as logical arguments.

            1. I remember arguing with a liberal about Obamacare when everybody was arguing about that. His rebuttal to my argument was “well, you have insurance!” He thought he really got me with that one.

            2. The funny thing is that I feel that most of the left-leaning voting blocs are not intentionally looking for more government as a solution to whatever issues they find important to them. It’s just that when emotions come before logic, it becomes natural to look for a solution that’s just as reactionary as their talking points. Hence why the answer to “The poor don’t have enough houses!!” is government to the rescue.

              1. It’s natural to look for a centrally planned solution. Emergent order is not intuitive. The notion of market solutions, as in non-specific people acting on incentives to fill demand, just isn’t intuitive. Not only that but it involves icky profits which, to people who feel that the economy is a zero-sum game, means someone else loses. It takes fairly rigorous thought to understand economics and how government fucks up everything it touches, while it’s really easy to simply look to government as the solution to everything. After all, government is force. It can make that square peg fit into the round hole if it hits it long and hard enough.

                1. This zero-sum fallacy is rampant here at Chapel Hill, but it makes no sense to me considering how most of my fellow students can easily switch their thinking when talking about the tech industry. If these same students can understand and the ideas behind Moore’s Law and exponential technological growth, how come they can’t apply the same logic to human progress? Don’t they and other millenials also know that our standard of living is so much higher than any other time in human history and that the last thing they deserve is to fall for such stale, outdated, and counterproductive political philosophy.

                  1. Don’t they and other millenials also know that our standard of living is so much higher than any other time in human history

                    Well, they’ve been told that wages have stagnated since the 70s, while the rich have gotten richer. Since inequality equals poverty, then that means that they are poorer than people in the 70s. Doesn’t matter that the wages can buy so much more stuff. No. Inequality equals poverty. Just ask Tony.

                    1. Just ask Tony.

                      And revel at his ability to pack multiple logical fallacies into so few words. It is an impressive skill.

                    2. And revel at his ability to pack multiple logical fallacies into so few words. It is an impressive skill.

                      One that John has managed to pick up, if you haven’t noticed. If John starts being a fallacious douche, point it out and he’ll run away like a little bitch.

                    3. Ah, so “what they’re told” trumps anything that can be seen right in front of their faces. Not terribly surprising, considering that for most people the line between inequality and poverty is non-existent.

                2. Excellent!

              2. We simply don’t worship the market mechanism as the source of all that is good and decent for human beings.

                1. We simply don’t worship the market mechanism as the source of all that is good and decent for human beings.

                  Yes, we all know that you abhor voluntary cooperation and liberty. After all, not forcing people to ask permission and obey orders in order to legally engage in economic activity is tyranny. We know, Tony, we know.

                  1. When you see the title “50 Shades of Grey,” do you react by saying “what’s grey?”

                    1. Tony, you’re just fucking delusional. You define liberty in terms of force, you say no policy is a policy, you say not giving is taking and not taking is giving, it’s as if you define everything by its opposite. Up is down, left is right. You’re not alright, Tony. No. You’re not alright.

                    2. Is Tony the lefty talking head of the boards? Of all the places in the interwebz to spread the word, he picks a libertarian board? There’s not that many of us to begin with, may not be the most productive use of his time if his goal is winning a battle. Plenty of nutcases on the NYT or Post that ask their dog for advice who he can fight instead.

                    3. Is Tony the lefty talking head of the boards?

                      Yeah. He’s been commenting here for years and still has absolutely no understanding of what libertarians support. His mission is to educate us on what libertarianism really means, which is slavery to the rich and the corporations. He has no understanding of economics, logic, reason, libertarianism, reading comprehension, or critical thinking. He’s a fucking moron who parrots what prominent leftists say without actually understanding what it is he is parroting. In short, he’s a fucking moron.

                    4. The one thing Tony has in spades, is persistence! Everything else seems to be beyond his comprehension.

                    5. The one thing Tony has in spades, is persistence!

                      Yeah. Just watch. In four or five hours when the thread it totally dead he’ll be back here skullfucking its eye-socket.

                    6. That doesn’t surprise me, I kind of think that real zealots view victory as having the last word, so dead threads are prime pickings for guys like Tony.

                    7. Tony likes it in the butt, I think that’s secretly why he keeps coming back.

      2. The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. — G. K. Chesterton

        It’s very simple. College kids especially are seeing a lot of social problems for the very first time — they meet other kids from around the country and world and break out of their local bubble. They see problems. Do they align themselves with the progressives, who want chage, or the conservatives, who want the status quo?

        It has nothing to do with who or what created the problems. In their eyes, the problems are all new to them, which may as well mean new to the world for all they know. Therefore something must be done, anything.

  6. “The people in San Francisco and New York may whine about the high cost of housing”

    The renters complain; the owners have dreams of cashing in when they move. For some reason, almost everybody wants their house’s nominal value to go up, I know this is irrational since they will have to pay more for their next abode, but progressive knuckleheads don’t think about adverse consequences.

    They also don’t want the congestion of nearby high-density housing, more noise, or their view to suffer. (If my city proposes high-density Section 8 housing to go up next to my neighborhood, I’ll complain about it, too.) And the real estate profession is paid on commission, so higher prices are a very good thing for them. Since only owners pay property taxes, and typically donors are already in the real estate game in one way or another, guess who carries more clout.

    To answer your questions:

    What idiot thought he could come up with a national housing policy? That would be FDR with his Four Freedoms and FNMA. Where did he get authority? The FYTW clause. Are important “issues” solved? Of course not. Politicians don’t solve issues; they use “issues” to manufacture consent for all the crap they actually do.

  7. “homes are expensive in high-cost areas primarily because of government regulation” that imposes “artificial limits on construction.”

    Agreed that this is the case largely because people demand it. If the “solution” is removing such regulations, then I can picture people just moving somewhere else where they can “control” things better.

  8. “Blocking high-density units serves, deliberately or not, to keep out lower-income people by making these areas unaffordable.”

    Oh, it’s deliberate, Steve. It’s very, very, very deliberate.

  9. So glad I moved out of SF. Well, sort of wish I had bought a crappy row house in the 1990s for $300k which will be worth $2 million now.

  10. There is no ‘cheap’ housing in San Francisco; what is sold below market rate is subsidized housing, a required part of any development. No surprise – the subsidy is added to the cost of the market rate units, raising the overall cost of SF housing.
    And I saw no mention of ‘rent control’. Well, it does ‘control’ rent, by allowing a select few to live cheaply, while the remaining renters subsidize them by paying enough to make renting property worthwhile. Strangely, renters in general still seem to vote for it, I guess in the hopes of moving into a place and never leaving.

    1. Meh – I have rent regulation in NYC (first time in 20 years) and the yearly increase basically tracks with inflation (wish my income did that). And the starting rent was around market rate. The only folks who are living “cheap” are the ones who got in on the action more than 30 or so years ago when the law was somewhat loosened. (SLD: I agree the whole apparatus needs to be thrown out.)

  11. I liked the article but I disagree with the idea of getting rid of “the tax deductibility of mortgage interest”.

    I mean we want a nation of OWNERS, we do not want large corporations to buy up all the property and then RENT it to us…

    I mean really,,, you can tell a rental from a owned home in many neighborhoods just by looking at it and it’s lawn.

    Owners have a stake in the community and care,…. Renters trash places and then just get up and leave.

    1. “Owners have a stake in the community and care,…. Renters trash places and then just get up and leave.”

      I agree, but I don’t want to use the force of government to ‘social engineer’ *anything*, even the stuff with which I agree.

    2. Reason has done several articles on the myth that the ortgage deduction encourages housing ownership.

      Principle also ought to tell you that all government meddling is onerous. Or perhaps you only have principal?

    3. I’m an owner.

      I’ve been a renter.

      I’ve never trashed a place.

      Actually, the old house I still own but need to fix up for sale, is in the worst shape of any home I’ve lived in except a couple of dive apartments I lived in when much younger. My old neighbors will probably be happy when I sell, hoping that the new owners will take better care of the old place….until they find out the new owner is an out of town investor and he’s renting to Section 8ers…..which happens to be the most likely outcome in this market in this location today.

      So you see, the wheel goes round and round. Renter. Owner. Renter. Owner.

  12. Jed Kolko?

    Gabriel’s cousin from the Ozarks?

  13. But rent control will make housing accessible…won’t it? Surely if they sold new 911 GT3’s for 20K there would be plenty to go around…right?

  14. I’m making $4 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….


  15. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.