Newsom: "This is not the old days when it was about bikes versus cars"
 |
| David Baker |
Mayor Newsom spoke too soon. He assumed that once the injunction was lifted on the city's Bicycle Plan, the whole bike versus car thing would fade as an issue, while he would get green points for "democratizing" the streets of San Francisco.
But the city's militant bike people will never be satisfied, because being anti-car is just as important to them as being pro-bike. Taking "space from cars" to make bike lanes is no longer enough to satisfy the bike people. Now they are moving on gas stations that provide fuel for cars and trucks, aka "death monsters."
The Arco station at Divisadero and Fell is the new front line in the bike people's anti-car war, and the radical fringe of the bike movement is determined to close the station.
Streetsblog is where you go to monitor the radical fringe of the city's bike movement and learn that they are now using civil disobedience against the Arco station.
It's a little surprising to see David Baker, a member of the Bicycle Coalition's Board of Directors, supporting the lawbreakers. Baker even seems to think those arrested for blocking the entrance to the gas station are the real victims:
Anyone really wanting to gas up could go around the block and enter from Divisadero. Also the police seem to ignore the common sidewalk blocking by cars here, so it seems like a discriminatory action to arrest people but take no action to others violating the same law. Treatment of the protestors, handcuffed for hours, held in jail overnight, etc, seems out of proportion to the "crime." Pretty much groundless harassment.
Oh, the injustice! After being arrested they actually had to go to jail!
Karen points out the problem with closing the Fell Street entrance to the Arco station:
I'm a little disappointed there was no mention of what effect taking away the curb cut for the gas station on Fell Street might have on the 24 Divisadero bus, though. I've taken that bus about twice a week for a few years now, and can report that it already has some trouble getting through that stretch of Divis (at any reasonable speed). If all of the gas station customers were entering and exiting on Divis, I suspect the bus would often get stuck behind them.
Well, yes, but the bike people don't care about Muni in our supposedly transit first city. After all buses are "death monsters," too. Let them ride bikes!
Baker compares the arrests at Arco with the protesters in the ADA movement:
FYI, I just learned that in 1977 the ADA (American Disabilities Act) was signed into law after a 29 day sit in by disabled advocates at the Federal HEW offices in SF. Hard to equate these two issues, but civil disobedience has had it's successes.
Yes, it is "hard to equate" the two movements, but Baker does it anyhow. The bike movement has also been compared to the Civil Rights movement, thus trivializing a great human rights movement and elevating a risky hobby to an unlikely moral and political level.
FYI, I just learned that in 1977 the ADA (American Disabilities Act) was signed into law after a 29 day sit in by disabled advocates at the Federal HEW offices in SF. Hard to equate these two issues, but civil disobedience has had it's successes.
Yes, it is "hard to equate" the two movements, but Baker does it anyhow. The bike movement has also been compared to the Civil Rights movement, thus trivializing a great human rights movement and elevating a risky hobby to an unlikely moral and political level.
Supervisor Mirkarimi, who has dedicated his years on the Board of Supervisors to advancing the Bicycle Coalition's agenda, showed up at the demo to show his support, to the approval of the bike people. John C: "I appreciate Mirkarimi's approval of the protesters and his vow to improve Fell St. Can you imagine Bevan Dufty doing the same? Let's get Mirkarimi to run for mayor in the next election."
Mirkarimi's support for this sort of thing is why he'll never be elected Mayor of San Francisco, not to mention his support for those who attack cops.
Mirkarimi's support for this sort of thing is why he'll never be elected Mayor of San Francisco, not to mention his support for those who attack cops.
Joshua Hart, one of the leaders of the anti-Arco movement:
"The important thing is that we have a level direct route to the Panhandle," said Hart, who noted the green bike lanes were still being blocked by cars entering the station. "The green bike lane is a step forward, but it's not enough, it's still being blocked. It's still the same conflict."
Why not put the bike lane on the other side of Fell Street? Because then the bike militants couldn't blame the Arco station for blocking the bike lane, and don't forget: Arco is owned by BP.
Once the bike people have shut down the Arco station, Fran Taylor suggests the next target:
If the City ever starts addressing gas station hazards, I have another candidate for attention at the corner of South Van Ness and Cesar Chavez. This station is practically all driveway along both streets, where day laborers congregate and not far from a school, health clinic, and daycare center. For now, cyclists are less at risk than pedestrians, but both groups will be affected if bike traffic picks up when the Cesar Chavez lanes are striped.
Labels: Anti-Car, Bevan Dufty, Bicycle Coalition, Divisadero, Gavin Newsom, Neighborhoods, Panhandle, Ross Mirkarimi, Streetsblog
posted by Rob Anderson @ 8:11 AM
51 comments
51 Comments:
"the 24 Divisadero bus, though. I've taken that bus about twice a week for a few years now, and can report that it already has some trouble getting through that stretch of Divis (at any reasonable speed)."
Bullshit. I take the 24 every day and it works fine.
I guess it depends on how you define "reasonable speed." I ride the #24 too, and its speed is limited between Haight and McAllister by traffic lights at every intersection. If all the cars visiting the Arco station had to use the Divisadero approach, of course it would delay the #24 line on Divisadero.
Adding more cars going to a business on Divisadero would slow MUNI? I find that a dubious conclusion at best.
Yes, of course. The Arco station is busy, because it has cheap gas. The #24 Muni line is the only bus line to run on that part of Divisadero. Adding all the Arco traffic to that part of Diviz would slow all northbound traffic on Diviz, which has traffic lights at every intersection.
This is about people putting and leaving their cars stalled in the middle of a high traffic bike lane. It ain't right and the slightest amount of courtesy or attention to the world outside of their car would tell them that it isn't right. What if bikes double parked in the middle of a car lane and waved the traffic around them like cars parked in bike lanes do? You'd be screaming bloody hell.
Don't Put Car in Bike Lane. Bike Lane for Bike only. Simple.
Why don't you put the bike lane on the other side of the street away from the gas station?
David Baker, AKA "Mr. Ego Architect" is beyond mid-life crisis...yet he continues to live one.
Gee, what if bikes all got together at busy intersections and made a lot of noise and blocked traffic and didn't pay any attention to the world outside their little bike planet?
Oh, wait....they do that already. It's called Critical Mass.
"The Arco station is busy, because it has cheap gas. The #24 Muni line is the only bus line to run on that part of Divisadero. Adding all the Arco traffic to that part of Diviz would slow all northbound traffic on Diviz, which has traffic lights at every intersection."
But adding traffic on Masonic for a Target would not slow the #43?
Got it.
Why don't you put the bike lane on the other side of the street away from the gas station?
Troll. You know the answer to that question.
"But adding traffic on Masonic for a Target would not slow the #43?"
You mean so many people will be arriving at Target from the southern part of the city that it will slow down the #43? I don't know of any traffic studies that show that. But we're talking about the #24 here, which is already going upstream both ways on Divisadero, which has a traffic signal at every fucking intersection. It would be folly to let the bike people divert all the Arco traffic to Divisadero.
"'Why don't you put the bike lane on the other side of the street away from the gas station?'
Troll. You know the answer to that question."
No, I don't. Maybe you can explain it to me. I understand that the bike people like to make the quick hard left off Scott onto Fell at that intersection. But why not instead just have cyclists continue on through the intersection to the other side of Fell Street? That would obviate the whole anti-Arco/BP crusade, while on the other hand avoiding a lot of unnecessary trouble, if that's what you want to do.
As a cyclist, I have always thought it was strange to put the bike lane on the left side of Fell. Regardless of Fell being a one-way street, drivers expect to find bicycles on the right side of the street, primarily, and I expect that the confusion caused by putting the bike lane on the left is part of the reason there are so many clueless/confused drivers blocking the lane.
I think another justification for putting the lane on the left is that many cyclists continue onto the bike/pedestrian path that runs along the panhandle (on the left side of Fell) a few blocks west, and having the bike lane to the left makes this an easier transition. But I'd still argue that it would be safer to have the lane on the right.
"I think another justification for putting the lane on the left is that many cyclists continue onto the bike/pedestrian path that runs along the panhandle (on the left side of Fell) a few blocks west, and having the bike lane to the left makes this an easier transition."
That's exactly why. The fact Anderson doesn't know this is just another example of him not really paying attention to what is going on. Completely clueless.
Moving the bike lane to the right either means the cyclists will need to cross multiple lanes of fast moving traffic to get to the path, or the bike lane would need to be extended past the start of the Panhandle. Frankly I'd love that, but then we'd be TAKING CAR LANES AWAY FOR BICYCLES! THE HORROR!
Probably just as many cyclists turn off to the right to the neighborhood around Hayes Street as go to the left. You bike zealots know that the whole Arco/bike lane controversy is bullshit. The gas station has more of a right to be where it is than the bike lane, which could just as well be on the right side of Fell Street.
Good point. Thanks to the Citizens United vs. case - corporations have rights just like people do, and a Gas Station can be argued to be a corporation. A bike lane is neither a person nor a corporation and is thus not protected under the Constitution.
" Thanks to the Citizens United vs. case - corporations have rights just like people do, and a Gas Station can be argued to be a corporation. A bike lane is neither a person nor a corporation and is thus not protected under the Constitution."
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no concept of what you are talking about.
The case you reference, as awful a decision as it may have been, only talks about the rights of corporations to make political contributions.
A gas station cannot be "argued to be a corporation." A gas station is a gas station, it's not a legal entity of any kind, it's a piece of property. It's likely that a corporation OWNS the gas station (and PEOPLE own the corporation.) In fact, many gas stations are franchises owned and operated by an individual or a family, and are thus more of a small business than a big corporation. I don't know anything about the ownership of the station on Fell & Divisidero, but certainly the owner(s) do have rights associated with the ownership of the property.
A bike path is a stripe of paint on the ground. It's neither a person nor a legal entity and clearly has no "rights", nor should it. It also has no way to express indignation if its rights were being usurped, so it's probably a good thing it doesn't have any.
"Streetsblog is where you can monitor the radical fringe of the city's bike movement and learn that they are now using civil disobedience against the Arco station."
I did not know you went to journalism school with Rush Limbaugh, Rob.
I understand that you bike people like to think I'm a right winger, but I'm not. I'm an Obama Democrat. I had to go to Streetsblog to learn about the recent arrests at an Arco demonstration. There was nothing in any other news source about that, and I read several papers a day plus visit a number of local websites for information.
Yea, we certainly don't want to do anything to the bikers by moving the bike lane to the right side, in fact the correct side of Fell. Fell is one way, so why the hell is the bike lane on the right side?
Oh wait. I know. It makes it "easier" for cyclists to hop on to the Panhandle bike lane. Good grief, don't wanna upset the easy way.
What a bunch of effing whiners. Now when I said "whiners" over at Streetsblog, the bobblehead boys Bryan and Matt got their panties all in a knot and yelled at me.
Like I care.
Keep up the good journalism Rob..and let's keep challenging and correcting every single rant the bike nuts continue to make.
"Probably just as many cyclists turn off to the right to the neighborhood around Hayes Street as go to the left."
Bizarre! Rob A. is suggesting that cyclists turn RIGHT off Scott to ride up a steep hill in the wrong direction on a one-way street? Dude, you should sober up before you type.
No, moron. What we're talking about is putting the bike lane on the right side of Fell Street from Scott Street, thus avoiding the conflict with the gas station. A commenter noted that cyclists want the bike lane on the left side of Fell by the gas station because they want to access the path on the panhandle. I pointed out that probably as many people end up going to the right/northern side of the panhandle to the Hayes Street neighborhood. There really is no excuse for putting the bike lane on the gas station side of Fell Street, except to display what's typical of some bike people---anger, self-pity, and self-righteousness.
Yes, the bike lane should, in fact, be re-located to the RIGHT side of Fell St. That would completely eliminate any conflict between bikes and cars..and the cyclists can still easily and safely enter the panhandle just a few blocks west of Divisadero St.
"I pointed out that probably as many people end up going to the right/northern side of the panhandle to the Hayes Street neighborhood."
Not a chance. Not even close.
"That would completely eliminate any conflict between bikes and cars..and the cyclists can still easily and safely enter the panhandle just a few blocks west of Divisadero St."
This requires crossing three lanes of fast traffic to make a left. Your definition of easily and safely is different than mine.
Cyclists are allowed to ride on the right side or left side of any one way street. Putting this bike lane on the left side is not inconsistent with anything in the CVC. The decision to put it where it is makes sense given it feeds in from the Wiggle to the South, and feeds off to the path on the South. Substantially more cyclists use this bike lane than there are customers to the gas station. Moving the lane would be cowtowing to the minority.
No, it won't eliminate "conflict between bikes and cars" on Fell Street. It would just change the terms of battle. Cyclists would have to be wary of motorists turning right on Divisadero off Fell and at other cross-streets along the panhandle. With the bike lane next to the Arco station, they have to look out for drivers turning left off Fell onto Divisadero.
More importantly, it would eliminate the trumped-up conflict at the Arco station, which, you may recall, is owned by BP. The city should scrape off that nice new green bike lane---it looks like a pool table---and install it across the street. Maybe the SFCTA could kick in a little sales tax money to get it done, as long as it leaves them enough to pay for their 26th floor offices with the great view in one of the ugliest buildings in the city (the ugliest being Fox Plaza a few blocks away).
what's wrong with getting rid of cars?
"The decision to put it where it is makes sense given it feeds in from the Wiggle to the South... Substantially more cyclists use this bike lane than there are customers to the gas station. Moving the lane would be cowtowing to the minority."
I'm familiar with the Scott/Fell intersection, since I live in that neighborhood. When cyclists approach Fell on Scott from the wiggle, they make a hard left onto Fell, often against the light. Anyhow, they could just as easily wait for the green light and cross to the northern side of Fell Street to continue west on Fell if the bike lane was there.
It's not a matter of minority/majority rights. It's really a question of whether cyclists and the city want to avoid the completely unnecessary conflict at the Arco station. Cyclists and demagogues like Mirkarmi like the conflict for political reasons. The city should put the bike lane on the other side of Fell to avoid that conflict.
I agree Rob. most of the cyclists making that sharp left onto Fell from Scott do it against the light, illegally and unsafely.
Moving the bike lane to the right side of Fell makes total sense, but you know..it would be "hard" for the cyclists to deal with that..
poor babies.
Militant cyclists will oppose moving the bike lane to the other side of Fell Street, because the anti-Arco bogus safety issue creates an artificial sense of crisis that keeps the anti-car agenda in the forefront. In fact there are few accidents involving cyclists on Fell Street, including the driveway to that gas station. In fact city accident reports show that the streets of the city actually have been getting safer for everyone, including cyclists, over the past ten years.
Like Critical Mass, the Arco pseudo-crisis---along with the pseudo-crisis over the recent death of a cyclist on Masonic Ave---keep their agenda in the forefront, and who, except for you and me and some others on D5 Diary, is going to oppose these deceptive tactics and this agenda? Not a single public official, though I have the feeling that the great, planet-saving bike movement isn't universally popular in the neighborhoods.
Mirkarimi's servility to the militant cyclist cause is the sort of thing that won't play well in a citywide election, except that if whoever he runs against isn't willing to oppose the bike lobby, city voters in effect still won't get a chance to vote on the issue. That's the problem with a one-party city-state---ideological and political conformity.
Supervisor Dufty isn't much better than Mirkarimi on the bike issue. They were both on this committee when it took away most of the metered parking on Market Street to make bike lanes, despite significant public opposition.
San Francisco: City of Lemmings.
"except that if whoever he runs against isn't willing to oppose the bike lobby, city voters in effect still won't get a chance to vote on the issue"
Run Rob! Run!
In regards to the question people keep asking about what's wrong with putting the bike lane on the north side:
- Assuming you mean on the inside of the parking lane, the current street layout doesn't allow room for a bike lane there that would be safely far enough from the door zone. It is indeed in such a position now, but it is on the passenger side of the parked cars where there is a lessened chance of a door opening.
- There are many more curb cuts on the north side. This increases the chance of conflicts with drivers pulling in/out of driveways, particularly if this is to be a separated bike lane as it should be.
- And most importantly, as has been addressed a few times already, a right-side bike lane would require people on bikes to cross this large, dangerous street twice to get to a destination on the same side three blocks away. This is not only dangerous, but also inconvenient for bike traffic. (If you think it is whiny to complain about such an inconvenience, the same could be said about drivers' need for convenient access to this Arco station.) Ideally, a safe thru route either on the Panhandle or along-side it would connect people from Scott to Stanyan, and that would remain on the south side of Fell.
The fact of the matter is the traffic entering & leaving on Fell station is in the way of allowing those who wish to choose to use a bike to transport themselves safe & direct passage on this vital route with standards comparable to those afforded to drivers (such as the Fell/Oak residential freeways).
The possibilities of how safe our streets could be for all users is incredibly stymied by convenience for automobile users. Should we really be prioritizing drivers' need for direct access to "cheap(er)" gas over the safety & well-being of those who choose a mode of transport that is more beneficial to everyone in nearly every way?
"...the current street layout doesn't allow room for a bike lane there that would be safely far enough from the door zone."
Your assumption is that the city is obligated to make your "mode" safe from all possible dangers. Impossible and an unreasonable expectation. Riding a bike in the city has intrinsic dangers. This needs to be acknowledged by both the bike movement and the city.
"...a right-side bike lane would require people on bikes to cross this large, dangerous street twice to get to a destination on the same side three blocks away. This is not only dangerous, but also inconvenient for bike traffic."
A bike lane on the right side of Fell wouldn't have to be crossed again for cyclists whose destination is the north side of the panhandle. And exactly how "dangerous" is Fell Street for anyone? Still haven't seen any evidence that it is.
"The fact of the matter is the traffic entering & leaving on Fell station is in the way of allowing those who wish to choose to use a bike to transport themselves safe & direct passage on this vital route with standards comparable to those afforded to drivers (such as the Fell/Oak residential freeways)."
Again, you cyclists are only a small minority in the city. It's typical of your narcissistic movement that you expect the city to completely remodel its traffic system to accomodate your interest group. Both Fell and Oak are essential for the many travelers moving east/west in the city. That you express your contempt for them is typical.
"Should we really be prioritizing drivers' need for direct access to 'cheap(er)' gas over the safety & well-being of those who choose a mode of transport that is more beneficial to everyone in nearly every way?"
The sort answer: yes, we should. If you had a realistic sense of your own "safety & well-being" you wouldn't be riding a bike in SF. Your selfish, PC movement would not only cause a massive inconveniemce for the overwhelming majority of city residents who don't ride bikes but it would seriously damage the city's economy.
So, in other words, if you want to be a citizen in this country who has rights and is offered safe passage on public streets - you need to be able to afford a vehicle. Otherwise, you are just some fringe second class citizen who deserves no such thing.
"Your assumption is that the city is obligated to make your "mode" safe from all possible dangers. Impossible and an unreasonable expectation. Riding a bike in the city has intrinsic dangers. This needs to be acknowledged by both the bike movement and the city."
This is the biggest piece of horseshit you have ever posted. And that is saying a lot.
By this standard, the city should increase their parking inventory by making the area currently wasted for crosswalks legal parking. Pedestrians get killed all the time - it is intrinsically dangerous, so why should we waste precious parking making it easier or more safe or convenient for them to cross the street. They should harden up.
Boo hoo! This is the crowning bit of bullshit for your movement---the self-pitying, crybaby notion that you bike people are an oppressd minority! Oh, with Leah in Europe, who's going to lead the oppressed to the Promised Land? The idea that everyone, whether in a motor vehicle or not, should somehow be guranteed "safe passage" on our streets is ridiculous. That's obviously impossible, any more than the city is obligated to have someone hold your dick when you pee.
Letting cars travel at excess speeds down residential streets is not something we should or can continue to accept. I guess you'll just have to ride it out bitching and screaming, Rob. Or as you say, shinning your little candle light into the darkness, you brave brave soul!
Yes, just as you bravely run with the lemmings here in the political theme park called San Francisco, a mere backdrop to the exercise of your moral superiority.
I don't see how I'm any more of a lemming then you? You claim moral superiority constantly, with what merit? I mean, come on Rob. We all do what we do because we think we are doing the right thing. You do your thing, I do mine.
I'm not running, I'm riding my bike in the new bike lanes. Boo hoo... mikesonn and me are screwing up traffic! Woe is us in the darkness!
If you move the bike lane to the right side of Fell, how would cyclists go from Scott to Fell? The way it is now, there are two lanes: one for cyclists turning left on Fell and one shared by drivers either making a left on Fell or continuing straight on Scott and cyclists going straight on Scott. I don't think that Scott is wide enough to accommodate three lanes: the leftmost lane for drivers making a left on Fell, a bike lane for cyclists turning left on Fell and a lane shared by drivers and cyclists going straight on Scott.
Shared lane for straight/left, like turning left from 14th to Folsom among countless others.
Rob,
I notice consistently in your arguments that you do a lot of work to try and maintain your narrative that this is about a minority of people who ride bikes wanting an unfair share of priority of space on the streets, based on superiority of a minor environmental impact.
But in reality, this is about creating the conditions for you, me, and everyone else in the city to feel safe enough that more people will use bikes for transportation because they feel it is just as viable a choice. As a person who wants this goal, I almost never think about "saving the planet" nor do i hear many people talking about it. I think more about more about safe, livable, vibrant streets rather than moving tons and tons of metal dangerously through them over anything else. Don't you get tired of holding up the straw man?
Do you think Fell is safe based on a measurement of collisions, injuries and deaths? Could it be that there is such a low rate due to people NOT biking and walking on the street as much as they would because they've been driven away by all the traffic? Such conditions are a pretty high cost to me.
No, riding a bike isn't intrinsically dangerous, it's only dangerous because of the conditions created for moving lots of auto traffic. I've lived in Denmark, where families, grandmas, children, and people of all kinds use a bike regularly for transportation. Why? Because their municipalities make sure that anyone who chooses to can feel safe enough to do so. Why don't you want people such as yourself to have that choice?
"Don't you get tired of holding up the straw man?"
No, because straw men are light and easy to hold up. (That's a joke, Aaron.)
The reality is that riding a bike will never be a "viable option" for an overwhelming majority of city residents, who either choose to drive or have to drive for a variety of reasons. You represent a militant minority that is trying to redesign city streets on behalf of that minority.
You deny that saving the planet is your motivation; you just want to do us all a big favor by screwing up traffic on the unsupported assumption that that will result in a lot more people riding bikes in the city.
How do you propose making Fell Street a sensible place to ride bikes? It's a one-way street that is a major west-bound traffic artery in SF. What's next, "calming" Gough and Franklin Streets for cyclists?
"Why don't you want people such as yourself to have that choice?"
The only way you can possibly make Fell Street a safe place to ride a bike is to completely jam up traffic on that street, which is so nutty I don't think even our oh-so-progressive city government will do it. I've already made my choice: I walk and take Muni everywhere I need/want to go in the city.
Yes, riding a bike in SF is, in fact, inherently dangerous, because vehicles and cars have to co-exist on the same roadways.
That's not going to change. Cars are not going away.
Cyclists could easily and SAFELY turn left from Scott onto a right side bike lane on Fell, as long as the cyclists STOP and wait for the light to turn green for them to ride thru safely.
Pretty easy and doable. They avoid the gas station issues, and when they get near the Panhandle bike path, they STOP at the appropriate intersection stop sign and cross safely onto the Panhandle.
What's the problem with that?
The problem is that it solves the problem and takes away the bogus sense of crisis the bike people want to maintain. They are both crackpots and political hysterics, the biggest drama queens in San Francisco, which is quite an accomplishment in this city.
Drama queen works. We learned from the city on the other side of the Bay, as Al Davis said "Just win Baby". But we have a better team than Al.
the biggest drama queens in San Francisco, which is quite an accomplishment in this city.
Well. I have to pretty much agree. Sometimes humans would rather fight and fight for years over who is "wrong" and who is "right" rather than just make an adjustment to solve the "problem".
Seems that in This City anyway, groups or neighborhoods or factions are forever trying to "make a point" rather than work toward a solution. I have to say in my 34 years living and loving SF, the pro-bike people seem to be the most belligerent and dogmatic about how we all should live.
Can you imagine if all the gay people in SF were that way and "demanded" that others live just like us? Fortunately, we don't think that way. There is room in this city for all kinds of people and all ways of living, including cars, transit and bikes all co-existing safely and peacefully.
Can you imagine if all the gay people in SF were that way and "demanded" that others live just like us?
Can you imagine if all non-gay people demanded that since you are a minority, that you don't deserve any rights? Should not be too hard to imagine since it's reality...
rocky's dad -
If we were "demanding" that all people ride bikes, we would demand the majority of street space to be dedicated primarily to bikes. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's motor vehicles.
People are asking for one lane in each direction. Stop trying to generalize false attitudes. Give me a break.
Not false attitudes at all. Expressing my opinion that many cyclists, esp those who rant over on Streetsblog want me to live "just like them"..
they say it. they believe it.
a bit rigid and close minded, wouldn't you say?
Don't worry rd - I don't want you to live like me - I want you to live in Alabama.
Post a Comment
<< Home