Arizona

Phoenix Taxpayers Lose $200 Million on Sale of Largest Hotel in Arizona

A city's sad foray into the hotel business

|

Sheraton, Copper Square, Downtown Phoenix, Arizona
David Pinter/Wikimedia Commons

The City of Phoenix is really bad at running a hotel. It may be even worse at trying to sell a hotel.

This week the city government signed a letter of intent to sell its terminally unprofitable Sheraton Hotel to the Florida-based developer TLG Phoenix LLC for $255 million. It's good news that Phoenix is finally shedding this boondoggle, but thanks to the staggering debt the city has already incurred to build the hotel, along with several giveaways included in the preliminary deal, Phoenix taxpayers are facing a possible $200 million haircut from the sale.

"Those are monies that could have gone into core strategic functions like police, parks, public safety in general," says City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, a longtime opponent of Phoenix's foray into the hospitality business. "Instead it got diverted into the losing proposition of a hotel."

In 2005 the Downtown Phoenix Hotel Corporation, an arm of the Phoenix City government, borrowed $350 million to finance construction of the Sheraton.

The thinking among proponents, according to David Krietor of Downtown Phoenix Inc., a community development group that supported the project, was that the hotel—which at 1,000 rooms is the largest in Arizona—would drive tourism and economic development in the city's downtown.

"I think if you look at the transformation in downtown Phoenix, it's been remarkable," Krietor claims.

DiCiccio disagrees, saying that all the Sheraton project did was "create competition for private sector hotels that were already having a difficult time. All they did was provide more supply when there wasn't the demand." Hotel occupancy rates in downtown Phoenix fell precipitously after the Sheraton opened, from 58.9 percent in 2008 to 53.9 percent in 2009. It wasn't until 2013 that occupancy rates returned to 2008 levels.

And ever since the hotel opened, it has constantly operated at a loss, requiring roughly $47 million in direct subsidies from Phoenix taxpayers just to stay afloat.

In 2015 the Sheraton was so much in the red that it required another $305 million loan from Phoenix city government to refinance its debt. That allowed the hotel to break its first net profit in 2016, but it also had the effect of transferring $305 million in debt—over half of which was supposed to be paid down by hotel revenues—onto Phoenix taxpayers.

By the end of 2015 Phoenix was searching for a buyer. Last year it looked like TLG Phoenix was willing to purchase the hotel for $300 million. That deal fell through for unpublicized reasons, and the city started shopping for another buyer. Finding none, they went back to TLG, agreed to knock $45 million off their initial asking price, and handed over another $13 million in public funds earmarked for hotel renovation.

TLG Phoenix is also being promised a massive property tax abatement, which DiCiccio estimates will cost the city another $50 million. Added to the losses the city has already incurred, that means the government's forray into the hotel business has left taxpayers roughly $200 million behind.

What will the city do with the money it frees up after selling the hotel? The options currently on the table include renovating the Phoenix Suns' arena or, if Mayor Greg Stanton gets his way, constructing a new arena entirely.

That idea infuriates DiCiccio, who does not want to see Phoenix replace one cronyist, loss-making investment with another. "There is no good answer," he says of the Sheraton sale, "but making it worse does no one any benefit."

NEXT: Donald Trump Admits Border Wall Won't Stop Drugs From Mexico

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t wait until the exact same fucking thing happens here in Norfolk.

    1. BEST NORF*CK EVAH!

      1. The use of the word “best” right before the word “Norfolk” is grammatically incorrect.

        1. It’s one of the best Norfolks in the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Statistical Region, anyway.

          1. And also one of the worst.

            1. It’s certainly in the bottom 3.

      2. We don’t drink, we don’t smoke! Norfolk, Norfolk, Norfolk!!!

        1. That rhyme doesn’t scan if you’re using the natives’ pronunciation, which is “NAWfuck.”

  2. “The thinking among proponents…, was that the hotel?which at 1,000 rooms is the largest in Arizona?would drive tourism and economic development in the city’s downtown.”

    Because, yeah, that’s probably realistic. I was thinking about taking a trip to DisneyLand this summer. But, then I heard that Phoenix had a big hotel. Fuck Mickey, I’m going to the Phoenix Sheraton!!!

    1. Yeah, that is some of the stupidest logic i have ever heard.. maybe if i get billions spent to build high speed rail to my city in Iowa from everywhere in the country, it will be the new tourist mecca because of the ease of access.

      1. You’ll have a hyperloop available within 5 years according to the Musksuckers.

        1. Musksuckers – how musk cologne is made.

    2. Well, cities with big hotels usually have lots of visitors and tourists. So the hotel must be the key factor.

      Can I interest anyone in a rock that prevents tiger attacks?

    3. I was thinking about taking a trip to DisneyLand this summer. But, then I heard that Phoenix had a big hotel. Fuck Mickey, I’m going to the Phoenix Sheraton!!!

      I think the funniest part, as usual, is that this was the best idea to come from that meeting.

      I bet there were probably some pretty hair-brained, but reasonable by comparison, ideas floated in whatever meeting originated this boondoggle.

      Lets have a lottery where we ask people to visit Phoenix and randomly give 1,000 of them $50 every day!

    4. Worse, these idiots had it built when occupancy rates were already under 60%. If some asshole came to me and was looking for financing under those conditions I would probably laugh at him.

  3. “Those are monies that could have gone into core strategic functions like police, parks, public safety pensions, union buyouts, ball stadiums and lawsuit settlements in general,” says City Councilman Sal DiCiccio

    Fixed.

    1. Well, I mean DiCiccio explicitly said that the government plan to build a stadium with the money was a stupid, horrible idea but I guess if you didn’t read the article you could think that.

      Now, the governor does appear to be a valid target of that critique.

      1. I wasn’t critiquing DiCiccio so much as I was glibly suggesting what modern governments of all stripes spend most of their money on.

        1. We don’t appreciate glibness here.

          1. that’s my whole gig…dang

            1. That’s ok, we welcome immigrants around here. Just don’t bring your culture with you.

              1. i’m a loner. brevity. soul. wit.

        2. Fair enough, since it seems the Governor is indeed exactly that type of asshat. ^_^

    2. What the hell has Phoenix come to when a man with a last name of DiCiccio can get elected? Where are the traditional names? Names of families that have been in Arizona since it was a territory. Genuine Americans that built Phoenix? Names like Garcia and Delgadillo and Chavez.

  4. The thinking among proponents, according to David Krietor of Downtown Phoenix Inc., a community development group that supported the project, was that the hotel?which at 1,000 rooms is the largest in Arizona?would drive tourism and economic development in the city’s downtown.

    “I think if you look at the transformation in downtown Phoenix, it’s been remarkable,” Krietor claims.

    DiCiccio disagrees, saying that all the Sheraton project did was “create competition for private sector hotels that were already having a difficult time. All they did was provide more supply when there wasn’t the demand.”

    Yet another thing the government shouldn’t be involved with.

    1. Without that Sheraton, Phoenix would be Somalia.

      1. Does Rob Halford live in Somalia? I THINK NOT.

        1. Rob Halford is a white Somalian.

      2. Haven’t been to Somolia, have been to Phoenix. Phoenix may deserve no better.

  5. “I think if you look at the transformation in downtown Phoenix, it’s been remarkable,” Krietor claims.

    “Why, there’s a big fucking hotel there now!”

    1. “Baby, let’s go to that big hotel in Phoenix.”

      Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh

    2. There’s also a new stadium, this weird outdoor mall, trolleys. There are in fact many new things that the government bought and placed there without thinking whether they should.

      It’s one of those curious things, where you have hundreds of miles of sprawl (Not and insult, just what it is in Maricopa) where there is so much land people just build outwards. But someone decided they needed to shove high-rises right in the middle of it for some reason.

      1. Yeah, that’s what I don’t get. Nobody *who lives in the Phoenix metro area* is going to drive for an hour to do anything downtown – if there were even anything to do downtown. And there isn’t. And what there is is available throughout the rest of the area anyway.

        As for conventions? Phoenix is great if your location option is ‘Michigan in the winter’. Nobody wants to go to a 4 day convention in Phoenix during June. And if they do, they’re driving to the convention center anyway – even if they’re staying in that goddamned Sheraton a block away. Because it hot. Its goddamn hot. They’re sure as fuck not walking over there. And if they’re not walking over there, they’re not going to make any stops at the stuff that isn’t there to do anyway.

        1. But Aggy, it was an opportunity for the elected minimal turds to feel important and powerful in a way they could never earn on their own merits. And you can’t put a price tag on that.

          Oh wait, you can. $200 million.

          1. ‘Elected municipal turds’……….damn squirrels.

  6. “The thinking among proponents, according to David Krietor of Downtown Phoenix Inc., a community development group that supported the project, was that the hotel?which at 1,000 rooms is the largest in Arizona?would drive tourism and economic development in the city’s downtown.”

    Yet another instance of the discredited economic idea that supply encourages demand, rather than the other way around.

    1. Supply does create demand (Say’s law).

      The problem here is that just building a hotel building doesn’t necessarily increase supply, as the hotel itself is not the product, but rather a capital asset used to produce the actual product (the service of staying in a hotel). As hotel-night prices in Phoenix have not cratered, that suggests the addition of this building has not actually increased the supply of hotel-nights in Phoenix, it had merely made the production of those hotel-nights far less efficient, hence the lost money.

      1. I will admit that I may not be fully understanding Say’s Law, but I’ve always had a little trouble with it. There are cases where supply creates demand, and cases where it doesn’t.

        In a micro-example, producing the iPhone when no one had ever seen a smart phone created demand for smart phones. And again, Say’s law might have a longer-version that I’ve never read, but there’s a point where creating more iPhones doesn’t create more demand.

        We have plenty of examples where supply didn’t create demand, leaving the product being supplied nearly worthless, and the people selling it going out of business.

        1. In addition, you could argue that the demand for iPhones was already there. Ie, there was a pent-up desire for a major improvement to smart phones that cell phone owners were primed for, but it wasn’t being met. Point being that producing the iPhone didn’t create demand (beyond Say’s contention that by putting money into the economy, people could now afford Henry Ford’s Model A– which is possible, but not a given.

          1. To use your smart phone example, people bought 1.5 billion smart phones worldwide last year. Now suppose the manufacturers had actually made 2 billion smart phones. What would happen to the remaining 500 million smart phones? What Say’s law says is that the extra smartphones aren’t going to just sit around in a warehouse until the end of time until nobody wants them. People somewhere will figure out things to do with them, and the price will eventually drop to the point where enough additional users will appear to by the excess.

            Now that price drop may result in huge losses and even manufacturers, but the phones already exist so that’s irrelevant from a supply and demand stand point. I think that’s what confuses people about Say’s law. It doesn’t say that supply creates PROFITABLE demand, only that no economic good is completely unwanted. It’s impossible to truly have a glut because someone somewhere will find a use for anything. All that a glut means is the suppliers are trying to charge above market prices.

            1. “huge losses and even bankruptcy for the manufacturers”


            2. It doesn’t say that supply creates PROFITABLE demand, only that no economic good is completely unwanted.

              While I appreciate your point well enough, if it isn’t profitable than who cares? What you describe is charity, not business.

        2. Don’t feel bad, a whole lot of people have a problem with Say’s Law. Mainly because it doesn’t accurately model or predict anything on it’s own, and never has.

        3. In a micro-example, producing the iPhone when no one had ever seen a smart phone created demand for smart phones.

          Holy revisionist history Batman! I saw and owned several smartphones before the iPhone existed.

          1. And yet his core point is still accurate…

            1. It’s not, considering that the original point was that the iPhone created the smartphone market which is impossible since smartphones (and thus smartphone demand) already existed

              1. Yeah, It’s like that retarded tv ad where they talk like the iPhone was the first smartphone ever. Which is bullshit. Almost every major cell phone manufacturer had at least one smartphone for years before that. Since at least around 2000. I personally had two smartphones before there ever was an iPhone.

        4. Say did not argue that supplying something creates demand for the good being supplied, only that production precedes demand. The more people produce, the more they can trade, the more they can demand from others. And so, theoretically, they will not overproduce (causing a general glut) because their growing wealth will induce increased demand to match.

          I don’t think “Say’s Law” was even a term until Keynes used it to refute Say’s theory about gluts.

          1. In fact, this is an example of Say’s argument:

            In fact, whatever profession or line of business a man may devote himself to, he is the better paid and the more readily finds employment, in proportion as he sees others thriving equally around him. A man of talent, that scarcely vegetates in a retrograde state of society, would find a thousand ways of turning his faculties to account in a thriving community that could afford to employ and reward his ability. A merchant established in a rich and populous town, sells to a much larger amount than one who sets up in a poor district, with a population sunk in indolence and apathy. What could an active manufacturer, or an intelligent merchant, do in a small deserted and semi-barbarous town in a remote corner of Poland or Westphalia? Though in no fear of a competitor, he could sell but little, because little was produced; whilst at Paris, Amsterdam, or London, in spite of the competition of a hundred dealers in his own line, he might do business on the largest scale. The reason is obvious: he is surrounded with people who produce largely in an infinity of ways, and who make purchases, each with his respective products, that is to say, with the money arising from the sale of what he may have produced.

            Phoenix is Poland in this instance.


          2. I don’t think “Say’s Law” was even a term until Keynes used it to refute Say’s theory about gluts.

            As far as I know, it was not. Wikipedia seems to confirm that, but it’s Wikipedia.

        5. Say’s Law does not guarantee a particular price, but only that someone will eventually buy at some nonzero price. This assumes that the seller is willing to keep lowering the price.

        6. Its not that there was no demand for the iPhone before the iPhone showed up. There was. Lot’s. Its just no producer ever thought, until Apple did it, that both the tech and the demand was there.

          Tons of people were modifying PDA’s to incorporate phone cards before the iPhone showed up. HP (with their iPaq series PDA) almost did it half a decade before Apple when they incorporated GPS and expansion slots into their product and the final one (before the iphone showed up and killed them) even had an indentation in the case where that had clearly gotten to the point of designing in a GSMR phone capability – before they decided it would raise the unit price above what people would be willing to pay.

          Then the iPhone dropped and it did everything they thought no one would pay for and sold at a higher price than they though people would be willing to pay.

          1. Blackberry was around for ages before the iPhone. Then there were all the Treo smartphones, like the 600 series. HTC had smartphones going back to around 2000. I had one of the later models around 2005. And there were many others.

        7. People can create the same demand for a new product without ever producing it, just advertising a lot. Production doesn’t actually do anything. And advertising convinces people they want a product by telling them how it fits some broad need they already have, like for communication or entertainment.

      2. Are you serious? ‘Say’s Law’ has been modified several times, in several different ways, because it’s not actually a ‘law’ at all.

        The problem here, is that Phoenix assumed that there was already something in Phoenix that would draw people to that hotel when such is clearly not the case. A hotel is not ‘production’, either, it’s a fixed amount of a particular ‘good’ who’s price will vary by the demand for those rooms because it’s relatively inflexible (outside of things like AirBnB).

        Also, it should be obvious that a hotel can not (or should not) lower the price of a room below what they need to cover their operating costs. So there is a bottom to the rational price that a hotel needs to charge to stay open and this is a moving price based on how many people stay in a given hotel in a given cycle. I would never expect a hotel price to ‘crater’ because if it truly does crater they are out of business. I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘crater’ though.

        1. If anything, expanding the supply of hotel rooms by 1000 could very well destroy the price for hotel rooms. If the hotels that were in business before this one opened were already struggling, this would be a terrible idea at face value.

          A simple example of this is, if you build a 1000 room hotel in the desert do you expect that people will want to go to that desert because there’s a hotel there that they can stay at? The simple answer is no, because no one wants to go to the desert.

          1. The problem here, is that Phoenix assumed that there was already something in Phoenix that would draw people to that hotel when such is clearly not the case.

            Ouch.

            1. It’s not like it’s the Flamingo Las Vegas, for cripes sake.

            2. It’s true though. The demand for hotels is usually a by-product of other things in the given area. People don’t go to a place for a hotel, they go to a place and happen to need a hotel as part of that travel.

              Phoenix is trying to put the cart before the horse.

              1. People don’t go to a place for a hotel, they go to a place and happen to need a hotel as part of that travel.

                They do visit resorts though, like Mohonk Mountain House, or The Greenbriar. And yes, that means I think the government should definitely invest in a destination resort.

                1. NY State already owns three ski resorts (at least), remember?

                  1. Yes, and they are all going to be powered by 100% renewable energy in the near future.

                    Thanks, Gov. Cuomo!

                    1. Let me guess, they are going to harness the energy of the downhill skiers?

                      “Sir, you have to crash into that big felt button at the bottom of the slope. We warned you before, no hockey stops.”

                    2. Big Felt Button was my nickname in college.

                  2. I don’t believe this.

                    *googles*

                    Oh f–k me. And it’s stupider than you would think.

                    1. The state is smart enough, however, to let someone lease the resort inside Saratoga State Park, so at least there’s that.

          2. My point is that the supply of hotel rooms DIDN’T increase by 1000. I can’t go right now and buy one of those rooms and repurpose it as a warehouse, or a store, or whatever. Because the Sheraton corporation doesn’t sell hotel rooms, they sell the service of sleeping overnight in a room I don’t have to clean up. And providing that services requires a lot more than and empty room, it requires maids, clerks, maintenance men, etc. the hotel is losing money because it can’t afford those things at a price point that will fill the hotel, so the actual additional supply created by this hotel is far far less than the capacity of the building.

            1. …and so what? The supply of rooms definitely went up by 1000, that’s a fact. While the count of rooms is relatively inelastic, the cost to maintain them is more flexible. This is fully expected.


              And providing that services requires a lot more than and empty room, it requires maids, clerks, maintenance men, etc the hotel is losing money because it can’t afford those things at a price point that will fill the hotel…

              So in your view, the hotel is losing out on patrons because they don’t have enough support staff to keep all the rooms open so that the true supply could draw in more demand. I thought you were trying to use Say’s law, not disprove it. Jesus.

              1. I reread your comment and the second portion of my response isn’t what you’re saying, I think.

                What I think you’re saying is that this hotel was destined to fail because you simply can not charge little enough to make someone take the room and make a profit. Seems legit I suppose.

                When someone says ‘supply creates demand’ I automatically assume they mean something else. I don’t consider anything below breaking even to be terribly worth discussing though as anything other than expensive oblique PR, so I tend to discount arguments that say ‘well, yeah, but you could still get 5 cents for that product that cost you 100 bucks to make’.

                And frankly, sometimes no one wants your product at all. If you give it away for free or cents on the dollar, I can hardly call that ‘demand’. Even a useless product no one wants will probably move a few units at a nickel, just because someone happens to have a nickel on them. (RE: P.T. Barnum.)

          3. Well, to be fair to Phoenix politicians, Phoenix itself came into existence *solely* on a ‘build it and they will come’ marketing scheme.

            Well, that and a really fucking big fountain.

  7. Those are monies that could have gone into core strategic functions like police, parks, public safety in general

    Or just never stolen from taxpayers in the first place, Mr SmartyPants.

    1. Yeah, whenever one of these wonks whines about wasting money over there, he or she is just dying to waste it somewhere else.

  8. “TLG Phoenix is also being promised a massive property tax abatement, which DiCiccio estimates will cost the city another $50 million. Added to the losses the city has already incurred, that means the government’s forray into the hotel business has left taxpayers roughly $200 million behind.”

    Hey, you’re not thinking this through! We’ll make if back on volume!

  9. OT but very sweet.

    “Three high-profile Democrats, including the Democratic Party’s two highest ranking officials, took part in a YouTube live stream on Tuesday in which they discussed hot-button issues, but the trio only drew 138 total viewers by the end of the event.

    Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez; Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.), the DNC’s deputy chair; and Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) took part in the YouTube live stream.”

    http://freebeacon.com/politics…..e-viewers/

    1. Meanwhile, a girl who posted a video of her kitten falling asleep at the same time had over ten million views and a write-up on BoredPanda within six minutes.

      1. “Kitten sleep girl – 5 things you need to know”

        1. Number 3 will shock you.

        2. The kitten’s net worth left us speechless.

      2. Our pets and the pets of others are clearly much more important than some jackass politicians.

          1. No, I am not gonna watch 200 best quotes from Arrested Development, youtube.

            1. Why not? It’s not like you’ve got anything else going on.

              1. Yeah, yeah, yeah, like the guy in the $4,000 suit is going to sit down and watch quote videos.

    2. “Three high-profile Democrats, including the Democratic Party’s two highest ranking officials, took part in a YouTube live stream on Tuesday in which they discussed hot-button issues, but the trio only drew 138 total viewers by the end of the event.”

      Moonbeam would have been thrilled if he’d gotten that many views of his “I’m taking over US leadership on the climate!” speech

  10. Sal DiCiccio did not receive enough graft.

  11. “I think if you look at the transformation in downtown Phoenix, it’s been remarkable,” Krietor claims.

    And here we are remarking on it, so mission accomplished! The transformation of several other major US cities like Chicago and Detroit and Baltimore over the last 50 years or so has been quite remarkable, too.

    I remember that time I got drunk and drove my car into a 7-11 – I didn’t think it was remarkable but the lady I drove over just couldn’t stop fucking making remarks about it.

  12. Well, with the case of the government failing to run the Mustang Ranch (largely because of a Judicial ruling, but Judges are part of the government, neh?”), and the case I know of on the CD border, where a porn shop was being run at a loss by the Feds, I guess the tale of a hotel being built and run by local government that was a bad idea to begin with, and lost money steadily, compass no surprise.

  13. But the government does everything better! This must be…uh…market failure! That’s it!

  14. Government is just another word for all the wealth we incinerate together.

    Speaking of which, maybe they’d be better off switching the entire building to an indoor grow operation. I hear Nevada is having a little supply problem…

    1. Government is just another word for all the wealth we incinerate together.

      I’m definitely using this. Short and to the point.

    2. I was going to comment that Government is only good at incinerating capital, but yours is better.

      The sad thing though is the sheer number of people who think incinerating capital is a good idea.

    3. Hey now Thomas, remember, government is the one thing we all belong to.

  15. One wonders if the Arizona Libertarian Party (or any non-political libertarians) ever bothered to show up at hearings when this hotel boondoggle was being proposed? Saying “I told you so” only work if, in fact, at the time you did
    “tell them so.” I think failure to speak out more often when these kinds of local issues are on the drawing board is a major failure of the modern libertarian movement.

    1. Sounds more plausible than 90% of what Hinh says.

    2. Hearings? You mean ‘public’ hearings?

      But the hearing notice was on display . . .”
      “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
      “That’s the display department.”
      “With a torch.”
      “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”
      “So had the stairs.”
      “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
      “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”

  16. To developers, price is the signal, not a politician’s whims. If the local room prices and occupancy rates are high, a new hotel gets built.

    A county in PA actually owend a ski resort and an outdoor concert venue. Because the Democratic commissioners wanted to stimulate growth. It didn’t last long.

  17. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

    ?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  18. City government should run cities. Let private money put its own neck on the line for businesses, which includes hotels.

    the city poohbahs who promoted and enabled this boondoggle need to be dis-attached from government…. for life.

    1. Private money wasn’t going to build that fucking hotel. I would be embarrassed to even pitch that deal.

  19. I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…


    ?..????????????

    Trump”s New Opprunuties See Here

  20. Don’t feel bad, a whole lot of people have a problem with Say’s Law. Mainly because it doesn’t accurately model or predict anything on it’s own, and never has.
    My recent post: UltraVid Review
    My recent post: QuickStart Profits Review

  21. ARRRGGGHH!!! What’s become of my beloved Arizona, where in the 1980’s some pin-headed congress-douche tried to close the university dorms because they were unfair state-sponsored competition for private apartments?

    1. “Look ma, a retarded troll showed up to dead thread-fuck.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.