@ Hugh Pavletich - the issue is not Land Availability... It's

1- Gowth in Money Supply Growth [ie Debt as Money] and...
2- Population Growth...

My questions are...

1- where is John key on on 1- above?
2- Can you talk to the Pope about 2- Above?

Thanks... that wuold be turely helpful.

Yes Roelof, and when easy credit was available to fuel the housing boom in the USA it was only the tightly regulated land markets there which boomed, cities with liberal planning regimes had much more stable house prices

With majority of MPs being landlords themselves............

The free marketeers keep trotting out this chestnut about urban limits to try and explain why the market isn't rational (i.e. it must be the governments fault) but the numbers don't back it up.
Check out QV's numbers at this link. In the debt fuelled boom from '00 to '07 house prices went up as follows;
NZ 120%
Large cities 111%
Provincial cities 146%
Rural areas 149%
http://www.qv.co.nz/propertyinformation/KnowledgeCentre/differencesinhou...
The fact is that massive growth in credit will push up prices everywhere, including areas with an almost infinite supply, as in the rural areas.

As for the argument that cities in the US with unrestricted land supply didn't experience the same unrealistic boom in prices, how do they explain the massive new empty subdivisions sprawled around Las Vegas, Pheonix, Southern California where prices boomed and then collapsed over 50 %?

Hugh Pavletich -

Developers of Urban Sprawl get wealthy simply by externalising Infrastructure costs to the Tax Payer.

Maybe your next article could Lobby Minister of Housing, Hon Phil Heatley... to make Developers pay upfront for the FULL Infrastructure costs they currently are able externalise to the taxpayer?

Like arguments to reduce the minimum wage, the argument to increase urban limits does not fundamentally alter wrong institutions. Minimum wages and urban limits are fundamentally harmful and wrong, and should not be relaxed but abolished. If wage rates and land use are understood to be morally and properly the domain of employers/employees and land owners, then neither minimum wages nor urban limits are proper.

Our common law legal system has a rich wealth of resources and protections, rights and remedies, categorised as contract law and tort law, to provide for both employment contracts and land use torts, but these days business law and ethics papers at universities don't even cover the tort of nuisance, so appreciation of it by management students (and others) is lost, and the focus of employment law is on statutes rather than common law.

Socialisation (municipalisation) and central planning of local infrastructure such as roads, streetlights, signage, footpaths, parks, water reticulation, wastewater, stormwater (as well services that can obviously be privately provided and funded by direct charges such as libraries, swimming pools, museums etc.) also stops people thinking about private or cooperative ways of providing for these services. For example, apartment buildings and all their common infrastructure and services such as driveways, lawns, gardens, external lighting, signage, building insurance, lifts and stairways (and even in cases such as retirement villiages: swimming pools, bowling greens, buses) are commonly provided by cooperative or other companies, and funded from levies on apartment owners or occupiers. Yet, outside the gates of these private communities, the same services become municipally owned and operated, and most people don't stop to think that the former could replace the latter.

It is ridiculous to compare Auckland to other cities around the world...If any one notices, it is centralised on a istlmus...so small, block off 2 or 3 roads and the 2 1/2s are isolated...And this exists in 2 places nth and sth of the CBD
It is this geographical nature that is the main issue for our transport problems.
If Auckland was in almost any other country, the manukau harbour would be reclaimed by now.
Not only that either end is built on a narrow island that can only expand Nth and Sth.
Maybe comparable in some ways to New York, built on islands.
So maybe the soln is to do what NY has done, build up...but that goes against the Kiwi mentality.
And is availability of land the real interim problem till the Kiwi mentality eventually changes?..
What about the large areas of 1/4 + acre sections that cant be subdivided simply because of a lack of basic services like stormwater...still on soak holes and drainage that was built in the 1950s and 60s.
In most cases the services/where they exist are obsolete anyway.
What is stopping this infill is the cost to the developer, not only to connect to the current services often 100s of meters away, but having to upgrade the obsolete services if they exist.
If a developer owned large area of these urban areas it would not be an issue, but to developer a section here or there often costs more than the rest of the development.
The argument to make more land available is simply a cheap alternative to enable developers to remain in business.
It is for short term profit that in the long term compounds the already existing issues with transport. No matter what miracles may happen to sort the current transport issue, expansion will result in these miracles always being in catch up mode.
In the 40s 50s and 60s our city planers planed 50/ 60 yrs in advance, this can be seen from strips of vacant land set aside for regional roads that only now have and are being built . Since the 70s planning has been more on the lines till the next local body elections or at most 10 yrs. Sort of a interim patch up at the most And unfortunately this is has been the mentality, not just in urban planing but other areas, financial planning, health , education etc.

An example of this stupidity...when the Auckland airport was built, the areas future runways where also set aside at that time...Then houses where built under where the future flight paths will go. 20 or30 yrs later, at great expense these houses now need to sound proofed, and complaints made about devaluation of these houses.
But the developers who built these houses walked away with nice profits at the time.

http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html?seenIEPage=1
The 2nd law is rather interesting.

Steps - I imagine though, in a future not too far from now, that the sound proofing problems of today might not be too much of an issue. People will not be flying as much as they have been in the last 30 years. Air transport is about to become a whole lot more expensive. Welome back to the 70's.

More on exposure to Dubai....This article has a great Photo of Financial Markets being shrouded in uncertainty yesterday...>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/27/british-banks-exposed-dub...

Saud Masud, a real estate analyst with UBS, said Dubai's debt could include huge off-balance sheet liabilities that could "imply a total debt burden well above the $80bn to $90bn markets have estimated so far".

Mouse, may I suggest you expand your mind quite a lot, think about society as interactions between suppliers and consumers, and think of housing, and its related services, as consumer products. What kind of housing would consumers like to buy or live in? The answer will be that people building houses for themselves or as an investment will want to do so on sites where the facilities appropriate and beneficial for residing households are in place or assured to be put in place, and that subdivision developers will have to provide this or go out of business. The how of the matter is for developers and investors and households to figure out, whether through trial and error or forethought or whatever. Communities will develop and be developed according to innovation and demand.

Of course the same analysis applies to competing land uses, e.g. industrial, mixed, agricultural, retail etc. just a different set of needs and solutions.

The article you sited is a braindead statement that people use forms of transport that meet there needs and are cost effective, and that cars have some advantages over other forms, and likewise other forms have some advantages over cars. People living where busses are infrequent probably chose to live there because they don't use them anyway, while those living in locations with frequent bus services probably chose to live there because they don't have or don't want to get a car. kinda obvious, no?

Arthur Grimes ay, another Monetarist Puppet(Muppet)
http://www.motu.org.nz/files/docs/people/Arthur_Grimes_CV_2009-04.pdf
deciple of the international financial cirriculum looking to NZ into an urban sinkwell for created credit. He is soliciting the same sort of advice proferred for the development of Dubai. Of course the "sophisticated" among house traders can see great oportunities to get in and out and leave someone with a gearbox full of banana shins.

Auckland is not the economic engine of NZ, it is a debt sinkwell for central banker created credit.

Ross Says:
"Has anyone thought hard about the effect of the government's broadband initiative on urban development ? There are business owners now choosing to live in , say, Hawkes Bay but still have there business in Auckland because for them HB is a better place to live."

Yeah I have....do they realy need 17 +meg download speeds?
thats a full movie in 5 mins
and on the other side 800k up.

And out of interest all u guys with your own web sites and domain email...
load up you office workstation with open source apachie, regidt a ,com .or .net domain off shore (about $80/3 yrs) opensource mail server....no hosting costs and you are in business.
Good for a web site that gets around 10,000 hits a day noy including search engine bots... no worries about db file backups, full control of detailed stats and no worries about having to ftp in.

But we digress.

Unlearned lessons from the housing bubble
Every major country of the world has abundant land in the form of farms and forests, much of which can be converted someday into urban land

Wednesday,17 June, 2009

By Robert J Shiller/New Haven, US

(Robert Shiller is Professor of Economics at Yale University and Chief Economist at MacroMarkets LLC)

"There is a lot of misunderstanding about home prices. Many people all over the world seem to have thought that since we are running out of land in a rapidly growing world economy, the prices of houses and apartments should increase at huge rates.

That misunderstanding encouraged people to buy homes for their investment value "“ and thus was a major cause of the real estate bubbles around the world whose collapse fuelled the current economic crisis. This misunderstanding may also contribute to an increase in home prices again, after the crisis ends. Indeed, some people are already starting to salivate at the speculative possibilities of buying homes in currently depressed markets.

But we do not really have a land shortage. Every major country of the world has abundant land in the form of farms and forests, much of which can be converted someday into urban land. Less than 1% of the earth's land area is densely urbanised, and even in the most populated major countries, the share is less than 10%.

There are often regulatory barriers to converting farmland into urban land, but these barriers tend to be thwarted in the long run if economic incentives to work around them become sufficiently powerful. It becomes increasingly difficult for governments to keep telling their citizens that they can't have an affordable home because of land restrictions.

The price of farmland hasn't grown so fast as to make investors rich. In the United States, the price of agricultural land grew only 0.9% a year in real (inflation-adjusted) terms over the entire twentieth century. Most of the benefit from land for investors has to be from the profit that agribusiness can make from their operations, not just from the appreciation of the price of land.

Despite a huge 21st century boom in cropland prices in the US that parallels the housing boom of the 2000's, the average price of a hectare of cropland was still only $6,800 in 2008, according to the US Department of Agriculture, and one could build 10-20 single-family houses surrounded by comfortable-sized lots on this land, or one could build an apartment building housing 300 people.

Land costs could easily be as low as $20 per person, or less than $0.50 per year over a lifetime. Of course, such land may not be in desirable locations today, but desirable locations can be created by urban planning.

Many people seem to think that the US experience is not generalisable, because the US has so much land relative to its population. Population per square kilometre in 2005 was 31 in the US, compared with 53 in Mexico, 138 in China, 246 in the United Kingdom, 337 in Japan, and 344 in India.

But, to the extent that the products of land (food, timber, ethanol) are traded on world markets, the price of any particular kind of land should be roughly the same everywhere. Farmers will not be able to make a profit operating in some country where land is very expensive, and farmers would give up in those countries unless the price of land fell roughly to world levels, though corrections would have to be made for differing labor costs and other factors.

Shortages of construction materials do not seem to be a reason to expect high home prices, either. For example, in the US, the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (which is based on prices of labour, concrete, steel, and lumber) has actually fallen relative to consumer prices over the past 30 years. To the extent that there is a world market for these factors of production, the situation should not be entirely different in other countries.

An even more troublesome fallacy is that people tend to confuse price levels with rates of price change. They think that arguments implying that home prices are higher in one country than another are also arguments that the rate of increase in those prices should be higher there.

But, the truth may be just the opposite. Higher home prices in a given country may tend to create conditions for falling home prices there in the future.

The kinds of expectations for real estate prices that have informed public thinking during the recent bubbles were often totally unrealistic. A few years ago Karl Case and I asked random home buyers in US cities undergoing bubbles how much they think the price of their home will rise each year on average over the next ten years. The median answer was sometimes 10% a year.

If one compounds that rate over 10 years, they were expecting an increase of a factor of 2.5, and, if one extrapolates, a 2000-fold increase over the course of a lifetime. Home prices cannot have shown such increases over long time periods, for then no one could afford a home.

The sobering truth is that the current world economic crisis was substantially caused by the collapse of speculative bubbles in real estate (and stock) markets "“ bubbles that were made possible by widespread misunderstandings of the factors influencing prices.

These misunderstandings have not been corrected, which means that the same kinds of speculative dislocations could recur."

Crazy Bill, there is an excellent paper that explains why Germany has not had a crazy housing bubble, and yes, it does have a lot to do with their planning process which is actually pro development rather than anti.

"Bigger, better, faster, more: why some countries plan better than others"

By Oliver Marc Hartwich and Alan Evans

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=47

Lastly, those utopians who think that urban limits help to "save the planet" need to read Alain Bertaud's studies that analyse urban density profiles. Natural density, the historical norm, is highest in the centre and lowest at the fringes.

Cities that adopted urban limits early on now display an unnatural profile where there is unexpectedly high density further out from the centre. The reason for this, is that land is driven up in price by a similar factor everywhere; the fact that the fringe land is ten times the price it should be, makes urban centre land also several times more expensive. The result of this is that the people who would normally have been quite happy to live in new higher density developments closer to the centre, simply cannot afford the prices, while people desperately seeking the cheapest possible alternative, find it only in higher density nearer the fringes. One can see this occurring even in NZ urban areas today.

The ironic result of this, is longer average commutes than under "natural growth" scenario.

This is just a rerun of the old, old story where utopian planners think they have the answers and in fact do more damage than good, even regarding their own high flown intentions.

To actually achieve high density living closer to an urban centre, it will be necessary to confiscate land from its owners, or at least confiscate the value increases that result from the urban limit policies; to enable the people that the planners want to live there, to be able to actually afford to do so.

Good luck with that.

@David Hillary - "think about society as interactions between suppliers and consumers, and think of housing, and its related services, as consumer products."...

I Don't....I tend to think of Land and as being of finite supply and it's value as greater than can be measured by ithe sum of it's cashflow or it's utility potential over my lifetime... therefore very different to me than consumer products.

Sadly, Once productive Land in converted to urban sprawl the cost of Switching back to Productive becomes prohibitive and it's future value impaired.

If Auckland [or other major centres] have reached capacity for urban sprawl given local Govt constrainsts... then tough...it's time for Developers find themselves into a more sustainable business model.

Should be fun sitting down here on the mainland watching Auckland deal with the extra 1.5 million migrants the govt plans to let in. Anyone for a slum tower in the backyard?

"It all sounds like a self destructive virus going thru the land

"Sadly, Once productive Land in converted to urban sprawl the cost of Switching back to Productive becomes prohibitive and it's future value impaired."

That is so true...an has been for 1000s of yrs...and has been the eventual destruction to many a civilisation simply because the viable land can not support it
It goes, simplified, like this
Urban sprawl takes over the productive land...in the 40s and 50s, Manukau was primarily farming and market gardens...they moved out to pukehoe, Pukekhoe is disappearing now, that then leaves the other side of the Bombay hills in a generation or so...
And the same can be said about Hamilton...
And this is our high producing volcanic and peat lands.
Eventually, if there are not any stupid short term thinking people around...and history shows greed out weighs intelegence...urban sprawl may still be stopped before there is no more viable land...BUT the population still increases till what is left of the viable land cant support it anyway.
Its common sense, even thu it could be several generations away.

In case anyone has noticed NZ is not on a huge Continent but and island..well a group of islands...So land is limited.
Then there is the argument "we can import like Japan and Britain" fine but that makes the assumption urban sprawl over the best producing land on Continental counties doesn't happen.

We are our own worst enemies...we initially settled and developed our cities with the best viable land around them....it is this , logical at the time, decision that is self destructive.

What the hell..build build sprawl out, who cares...we will not be around..just our great great grand children...thats if 21/12/2012 or climate change doesnt screw us 1st.

I think part of Auckland's problem is the comment Grimes mentions about it being polycentric and as Steps mentions a lot of that has to do with geography. Capitalising on these separate centres within the larger metro area is the way to go.

And planned density is key - compare for example;

Auckland 1,227/km2
Sydney 2,058/km2
Chicago 4,883/km2

Improving urban density with a focus on walkability and cycle-friendliness, along with an emphasis on creating small but frequent open spaces is the vision I'd have for the city. Density zones within each polycentric 'core' should be well planned to ensure view shafts from one 'core' to the next and beyond to the central city/harbour are maintained.

And financial incentives need to be put in place for good quality, energy efficient medium/high density projects. Perhaps foregoing reserve contributions where a well respected urban design-council approves a particular project would be the way to go.

80m2 apartments are too small to attract families. What Auckland needs are 100-120m2, 3bdm/1.5bath apartments for first homeowners at under $300K.

The complexes should be designed with a particular demographic in mind, for example for a complex designed with young homeowners might have a day care facility on site and a permanent mini-school bus service. For retirees the apartments would be wheelchair friendly and the complex might have a permanent minibus mall/doctor/hospital and meal-to-door services for residents.

We need to start thinking about an oil-scarce future and affordability up as opposed to affordability out. It just makes so much more sense.

Good to see Kate has a vision for how the city should develop. She's calling for the government to impose her vision on the city. Kate, let me ask you to consider that the larger the number of people involved in something, the more market institutions provide the flexibility and efficiency needed to meet so many diverse and changing needs. By contract, in a small geographic community of, say, 100 to 1000 houses or buildings or properties, the feasibility and desirability of express compromise and cooperation to acheive a shared vision become greater. Thus the city of 1000000 could be made up of a spontaneous order of 1000 to 10000 communities.

@David Hillary - Valuation models don't enable infinte growth from finite resources.... There come a point where we need to live within our resources. where is that point?

@mouse: please explain in more detail what you are asking.

@David Hillary - a) Yes, there is is some merit in it... b) ah Ha! I did'nt think you were that high up the food chain.

Kate - yes one or two enlightened planners in recent times have advocated for discounts for higher density developments as an incentive to encourage this form of development - I think its a good idea.

But aiming for 100-120 square metre apartments selling for less than 300K is pie in the sky. Build costs for multi level apartments is much higher, as a minimum $2200. Multiply 120 by 2200 equals 264,000. Throw in say 70K for the land for that unit, then a profit margin, then a proportion of the professional design fees, then marketing / sales, then cOuncil fees and contributions (even with discount) etc etc ........

Another thing I think Auckland MUST do is allow for granny flats / secondary flats. They allow it in Manukau, but not Auckland City or North Shore. If even say 10% of Auckland's houses had a granny flat added we'd be tlaking about automatically accommodating another 30-50,000 people. Although some NIMBY people seem to get deeply offended by these flats they are pretty low impact and innocuous

extending urban limits is definitely part of the mix though. To those who think it is a far right dogma, then think again. Infamously left leaning Paul Krugman has written extensively on the impact of planning restrictions on house prices

David said, Good to see Kate has a vision for how the city should develop. What's the problem, David - are you saying only 'the market' should be allowed to have a vision for the city?

Wow, that's novel.

Mouse,

"We could cut the demand for Aucklands finite resources if we handed out free condoms at communion in the Auckland Area"¦ thus aleviatling the need for Supply controls"¦ Do you think you could get the Popes authorization?"

Catholic countries do not figure high among most densely popluated in the world. You will find England and holland (bastions of proptestantism) are a lot higher than Spain, Mexico, Italy etc. In asia, Japan is well ahead of the Phillippines. And many of the most poluated countries are the wealthiest (eg Singapore). maybe you should take your small minded bigotry and place it in an appropriate place (i can think of a few if you need some ideas).

At the top of the comments section, I spelt out clearly the basic (and they are very basic) numbers of a normal affordable city.

Some may like to refer to the United Nations 2007 World Population Report (referred to within my March 2008 paper "Getting performance urban planning in place" - which states quite clearly -

"First, preparing for an urban future requires at a minimum respecting the rights of the poor to the city. As Chapter 3 shows, many policymakers continue to try to prevent urban growth by discouraging rural / urban migration. These attempts to prevent migration are futile, counter-productive and above all wrong - a violation of peoples rights".

At the end of my paper of January this year "Housing Bubbles & Market Sense" I quote Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University who basically said that people who engage in anti competitive behavior in the commercial arena are quite rightly jailed.

Those who support the idea that land supply should be strangled and artificially inflated should do the decent thing at least, by moving out of the cities, so that prices are not inflated to allow the poor to buy them. I dont see too many of the urban stranglers offering to leave the cities themselves - or am I missing something?

Misusing the political process to deny people affordable housing really is a very serious matter indeed.

Yikes;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/residential-property/news/article.cfm?c_id=76&...

The number of accommodation supplements paid to people in private sector housing has also jumped by 27 per cent nationally, and by 29 per cent in the Auckland region, in the past 16 months.

And imagine just how many of those rentals are loss making assets even with the government subsidy. So, the taxpayers who don't own rental properties, firstly subsidise the tax break of the rental property owners, and secondly subsidise the loss-making income of their businesses. Ludicrous.

I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward building state-owned housing.

Is continued population growth the answer? - Exponential Growth - maybe we are all short term thinkers or got blinkers on as we are only focused on our own lifetime. The worlds got some very real problems ahead re oil, food, water shortages, combined with population growth to name but a few - maybe NZ should take the lead and close its doors to further migration fueled population growth and focus on long term sustainability and not short term gain (most of which has negative long term disadvantages).

Aucklands become a semi dysfunctional city and will only get worse as we don't have the money to keep up with its population growth.

Motu is right to a degree in regards to expanding the MUL's - however it appears we are all missing the point with the early warning signs that anyone that understands exponential growth can workout.

My bet is that something has to give within the next 20-50 years - we should take the blinkers off and start to plan for the looming shortages (and resulting change to our lifestyle) - "fail to plan plan to fail".

newby, government and council are just doing what they do best - looking after their like voters who own property.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6936028.ece

I don't think Dubai is such a good show case.

@Jimmy - Surely you can make the connect between...

a) the Demand for Resources and Population Growth and,
b) Population Growth and Contraception...and,
c) Contraception and Catholic Church dogma ?

But then again, It only took 400 odd years for Catholicism to accept the earth is not Flat....
I wonder how long it will take to accept the connect between Contraception [or the lack thereof] and the Demand for Land and Resources?

Wow... the topics covered in the discussion go everywhere. However, I wager that no one in this comments thread has even been close or been involved in the process of developing land for housing in Auckland.

Grimes is right on the money (so to speak) when he fingers the MUL has a major driver of land price inflation, which has a knock on effect to house price inflation. He doesn't cover the subject of council imposed costs on developers (which are passed on to buyers) such as a vast increased in reserve contributions, which also contribute to land price inflation.

As for intensification, its a hard one to crack. New Zealanders want to live in detached housing, period. The ratio of detached housing (house and land package) to multi-unit (flats/apartments) is about the same as it was 30 years ago. That is what people want and no amount of urban planning or council inspired social engineering has worked to increase intensification. In fact often council's own rules work against intensification.

To the people on this comments list that moan about greedy developers you have to consider the risks that developers are taking. The time required to get planning approvals through and the sheer cost of getting approvals make property development a high risk activity; they have every right to be rewarded for the risks they are taking.

I still have no idea how this comments list turned into a religious debate though...

Arthur Grimes is right.

It's so nice to see the planners smoked out here even thought they won't post under their own names.

Kate wants the government to do low cost housing. Just look at all the Council flats many battery hens have better conditions. One I visited (operated under enlightened Council policy) contained long term retiree residents, non dried out alcoholics and drug abusers and a fellow wearing a dress saving up for a sex change. Water leaked from the bathrooms above to the flats below. That was a Council (government) created vision of community. Totally socially dysfunctional. And these guys want to plan for my life cycle.

The first question I always ask Council planners is where they personally live. Its NEVER is a manner that they propose for the everyone else in their vision of the future. It's in the bush in Titirangi or the Villa on the Shore or in Mt Eden. This wont surprise they are naturally middle class; they are not hypocrites because they are doing their bit by advocating and enforcing density on everyone else.

It's so odd to think they one can make oil last longer by building high carbon footprint highrise concrete and steel buildings (where's the sustainable plantation wood carbon sinking here). Surely we want the price of oil to rise. People aren't so wasteful. Innovation kicks in. Cars will be 25% more efficient with known technology now. We cannot imagine the technical innovation that high priced oil will bring. Peak oil: yes we can.

In short technology will fix the energy problem planners claim they are addressing by offering us a high density highrise future.

jerseys
NBA Jerseys
ugg boots

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I've enjoyed reading your posts so far
ugg bailey button UGG Cardy Grey UGG Classic Short

Mouse simply ignored my postings. The first one alone proves he/she is talking rubbish about population levels driving land prices up.

Of course prices will go up when the authorities run a cap and trade scheme in land, and only permit 3% of it to be built on. (or 15% in the case of some more highly populated countries).

Allowing urban sprawl might have resulted in another 3% of Britain being urbanised, and would have done wonders for housing affordability. In the case of NZ, it would be another 0.2% of NZ.

Hugh Pavletich pointed out somewhere that there is more land in NZ in deer farming than there is in urban development. This is just wrong headedness in every way, morally and economically.

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://largepet.info

Small Business owners are largely forgotten. Thats why I only focus on them. I have experience several members of my family file bankruptcy due to small business failures. I also I suffered through 2 destroyed businesses due to failure however, in my failings I have learned some of the secrets to success. (Who can say they know it all?)

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Es evidente que hay mucho que saber sobre esto. Creo que hizo algunos buenos puntos en características también. Sigue trabajando, gran sitio !