News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Amazon HQ2

Started by Bruce, September 07, 2017, 05:45:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

oscar

Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:35:51 PM
Trouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire.  They're looking to poach their competitor's top employees, keeping them around only for however long they're needed or until they get poached again, whichever comes first.  Hence the tendency of employers to concentrate in the largest cities, where the poaching supply is plentiful.

I wouldn't over-generalize. But Amazon definitely is not one of the companies described in the first sentence. It wants already highly-skilled workers, commanding very high salaries (one of the benefits touted to the places vying for a HQ2), in a good place to live that would help it poach such workers from other metro areas in addition to the ones already living near the HQ2 site.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html


Beltway

#426
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:05:54 PM
Yeah, even homeowners are hurt by gentrification.  The only people who benefit are newcomers, developers, and homeowners who cash out on the increased property value and move.

Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable.  The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods.  The buildings won't just improve themselves.  Those building projects are very expensive.  The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jakeroot

Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:05:54 PM
Yeah, even homeowners are hurt by gentrification.  The only people who benefit are newcomers, developers, and homeowners who cash out on the increased property value and move.

Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable.  The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods.  The buildings won't just improve themselves.  Those building projects are very expensive.  The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.

OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.

Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.

Scott5114

Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2019, 01:24:24 PM
When I think of companies moving to Kentucky, I don't think about Louisville or the Cincinnati suburbs, or mass transit or anything like that. I think about communities where unemployment is still a big problem, and those places don't qualify. I think about smaller communities with plenty of cheap land (many with already-developed industrial parks that have vacant property available, if not vacant buildings or unused spec buildings), lower costs of living and lower tax rates, and a workforce that would love to see some decent-paying jobs come into the area.

Companies choose where to expand based on their needs, not those of the town they're expanding into. Companies looking into moving aren't thinking about places like the small towns in Kentucky you talk about, because they are thinking about mass transit and things like that. A good mass transit system means lower absenteeism by employees because of things like "my car broke down" "my wife needed to use the car to take her mom to a doctor's appointment 90 miles away" or things like that.

Additionally, smaller towns mean smaller labor pools. Once you employ everyone in town that wants to work there and still need more employees, what's left? You've got to convince people to move there, and if your list of recreation options include things like Walmart or Dollar General, then you're going to have trouble filling positions.

Even if a company were to want to roll into town and basically remake it in their own image, it's likely there are bunches of town that still wouldn't qualify because of a lack of easy road access. There's no good reason to put a business in Ava, Missouri, for instance.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Beltway

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable.  The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods.  The buildings won't just improve themselves.  Those building projects are very expensive.  The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.

Strawman.  The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"

These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

MantyMadTown

Quote from: oscar on February 15, 2019, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 15, 2019, 01:35:51 PM
Trouble is, companies these days aren't looking to hire unemployed locals, train them, and keep them around until they retire.  They're looking to poach their competitor's top employees, keeping them around only for however long they're needed or until they get poached again, whichever comes first.  Hence the tendency of employers to concentrate in the largest cities, where the poaching supply is plentiful.

I wouldn't over-generalize. But Amazon definitely is not one of the companies described in the first sentence. It wants already highly-skilled workers, commanding very high salaries (one of the benefits touted to the places vying for a HQ2), in a good place to live that would help it poach such workers from other metro areas in addition to the ones already living near the HQ2 site.

I hate that many of the largest companies are like this. Amazon had been looking for the largest cities who already had the work put in to build the infrastructure and develop the talent pool, instead of trying to invest in it themselves, and even then still demanded major tax breaks from those cities. If only the largest cities are considered eligible for attracting this kind of employment, then we only have an economy that works for a small percentage of people.

That's why I wanted Amazon to consider moving their HQ2 somewhere in the Rust Belt, where they at least invest in the physical and talent infrastructure and potentially revitalize those cities. But no, they want the easy way out, and it leaves most of us behind.
Forget the I-41 haters

jakeroot

Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable.  The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods.  The buildings won't just improve themselves.  Those building projects are very expensive.  The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Strawman.  The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"
These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.

Fair point. But any time a large corporation moves in, there's going to be sudden changes that the locals cannot deal with. In some cases, this is skyrocketing rent. In others, it's a cheque (from, perhaps, Amazon) telling them to get out, or at worst, the government telling them to get lost through some form of eminent domain. The latter process was how the Barclays Center was built.

A smarter move by Amazon wouldn't be to create some city-vs-city competition. Amazon should find an area that fits their wish-list, and slowly set up shop over decades. These competitions get landlords particularly excited, which is not good for renters.

MikieTimT

HQs can be in smaller towns and cities, but without amenities and entertainment, they have to draw from other cities in the area or pay enough to draw from other areas and allow for folks to take out of town vacations.  I worked in Wal-Mart's Information Systems Division in Bentonville back in 1997-2004 when Bentonville was 15,000 people and nothing at all to do there.  Coincidentally, that's when Amazon was poaching a lot of the folks I worked with to get their business ramped up.  Most everyone who worked for Wal-Mart lived in other cities in the area like Fayetteville with more things to do, but the transit situation in Northwest Arkansas is laughable at best.  Fayetteville has decent transit, but the freely available service doesn't leave the city limits.  There is a regional transit bus service that does serve all of the major cities in NWA, but it isn't free and isn't very extensive in the areas it serves.  So, in a nutshell, the largest company in the world can have an HQ in a small town and do just fine without transit and other services and amenities, but has to pay more than the going rate that others in the area do to draw in talent.  This has changed dramatically in the last 15 years as there's a bounty of amenities, services, and things to do now, mainly because the Walton family has invested in their hometown and area to make it a destination, but it certainly isn't what caused the company to grow and flourish in the first place.  They even have an embarrassment of a Home Office for their HQ, but buildings aren't what builds a business up anyway.

Beltway

#433
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?

The dictionary definition doesn't include such usage.

Poaching has been defined as the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals, usually associated with land use rights.

Since the 1980s, the term "poaching" has also referred to the illegal harvesting of wild plant species.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaching
 
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jakeroot

Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?

Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.

MantyMadTown

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 03:26:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:58:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 02:23:52 PM
Most of the buildings (business, home and rental) in those areas are 100+ years old and are already in serious structural and infrastructure decline to the point where some of the buildings are uninhabitable and unusable and many others are close to being uninhabitable and unusable.  The cities should be thankful that investors will come in and perform the needed upgrades and replacements to provide livable buildings and neighborhoods.  The buildings won't just improve themselves.  Those building projects are very expensive.  The South Bronx is one of the best examples of a disaster zone that was gradually improved by investors over a couple decades to make it livable again.
OK. Let's evict everyone and send them....where? Perhaps it's not the developers' problems, but it's certainly the problems of the borough reps and city councillors.
Don't think for even a second that land-use and zoning changes are easy.
Strawman.  The reverse strawman would be, "So let's just let the city become uninhabitable, huh?"
These aren't sudden and global decisions, these are incremental decisions taken by building or small groups of buildings, taken over a period of years or even decades.

Fair point. But any time a large corporation moves in, there's going to be sudden changes that the locals cannot deal with. In some cases, this is skyrocketing rent. In others, it's a cheque (from, perhaps, Amazon) telling them to get out, or at worst, the government telling them to get lost through some form of eminent domain. The latter process was how the Barclays Center was built.

A smarter move by Amazon wouldn't be to create some city-vs-city competition. Amazon should find an area that fits their wish-list, and slowly set up shop over decades. These competitions get landlords particularly excited, which is not good for renters.

The worst part about the whole HQ2 fiasco was this. Pitting cities against each other, that way only the cities that can offer the most (ie, pre-built infrastructure and talent, as well as the most tax breaks) can reap the rewards. And it doesn't benefit the people already living there, especially Long Island City before they pulled out of there. They should've been more upfront about it instead of pretending the competition was fair from the start.
Forget the I-41 haters

Beltway

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.

Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-.  A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jakeroot

Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-.  A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.

Oh for god's sake. Could you think less literally for half a second?

Amazon is seeking to move to an area with well-trained workers, who are probably not unemployed (and therefore more skilled than just college graduates). Yes, they will attract employees from outside the area, but so will other area companies, filling positions that were vacated by employees who left for Amazon.

Amazon is, effectively, poaching workers from other companies. Is it an entirely legal form of it? Yeah, of course. The employees are choosing to move. But looking at it from the perspective of other companies, they feel like Amazon is stealing their workforce.

Beltway

#438
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 06:33:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 06:15:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 15, 2019, 05:31:31 PM
What is with this repeated use here of the term "poaching" to describe business competition for employees?
Probably the best word to describe the situation, which is, businesses moving to an area with the expressed interest of capturing employees from other nearby companies.
Poaching is -stealing-, and is -illegal-.  A rather demagogic word to use for trying to attract employees, which could be from anywhere and not just nearby.
Oh for god's sake. Could you think less literally for half a second?
Amazon is seeking to move to an area with well-trained workers, who are probably not unemployed (and therefore more skilled than just college graduates). Yes, they will attract employees from outside the area, but so will other area companies, filling positions that were vacated by employees who left for Amazon.
Amazon is, effectively, poaching workers from other companies. Is it an entirely legal form of it? Yeah, of course. The employees are choosing to move. But looking at it from the perspective of other companies, they feel like Amazon is stealing their workforce.

Companies don't "own" employees, so there is no such thing as "stealing" employees.  Companies have the ability to offer incentives to retain employees, such as a higher salary and/or higher benefits.

Companies that are in the buildup phase recruit from all over the country and the world.  I grew up near Cape Canaveral in the 1960s, by my dad being recruited in the 1950s for a job at an aerospace company near there, and we moved from the Chicago area to there.  Things were really ramping up for the space program there then, and the vast majority of the tens of thousands of space program employees came from places all over the country.

The word "poaching" means literally stealing, and in the context of business the word sounds like something cooked up by socialists.

If you want to get over-literal, you could claim that the companies that already exist "stole" employees from other companies.

But it is not a zero-sum game.  What about young early-career employees that don't have any long-term relationship with a company due to their age?  Amazon recruits lots of employees in that group.
 
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jakeroot

Let's just look at this from another perspective.

Let's pretend you're a DC-area business with a highly-trained workforce. You hear that Amazon is moving to the area because of all the highly skilled workers, plus the great schools, transit, etc. You also hear that Amazon, thanks to their massive tax breaks, will be able to offer some pretty incredible incentives to potential hires, incentives that you cannot possibly match. Next thing you know, you start losing workers every couple of weeks to Amazon. You're powerless to stop it, because you don't have all the free cash that Amazon does. You feel like Amazon just showed up and started stealing your workers.

Get it? I've highlighted a key term here because you keep taking things too literally.

If you don't like the term "poaching", which word would you rather use? If you cannot offer an alternative, then, well, bugger off.

Beltway

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Let's just look at this from another perspective.
Let's pretend you're a DC-area business with a highly-trained workforce. You hear that Amazon is moving to the area because of all the highly skilled workers, plus the great schools, transit, etc. You also hear that Amazon, thanks to their massive tax breaks, will be able to offer some pretty incredible incentives to potential hires, incentives that you cannot possibly match. Next thing you know, you start losing workers every couple of weeks to Amazon. You're powerless to stop it, because you don't have all the free cash that Amazon does. You feel like Amazon just showed up and started stealing your workers.

The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2.  Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.

You are also assuming that those hires are all coming from one company and not from hundreds all over the country.

You are also assuming that those are long-term employees when in fact most employees change employers every 5 years or so, on average.

You are also assuming that many other companies don't get any tax breaks themselves.

Quote from: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 11:48:02 PM
Get it? I've highlighted a key term here because you keep taking things too literally.
If you don't like the term "poaching", which word would you rather use? If you cannot offer an alternative, then, well, bugger off.

Business competition.

If you want to blame someone then that would be the state and local governments.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2.  Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.

If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
And, as it is already discussed, those taxes not necessarily disappear as NYC is not limited by available jobs.

Beltway

Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2.  Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation

Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts.  Very conceivable estimates.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2.  Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation

Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts.  Very conceivable estimates.
Such estimates make little, if any, assumptions about factors outside the scope of the project. Would be correct for a random spot on a map. But it is  NYC of all places.
Economy is limited by whatever else, including subway throughput and the amount of land available for residences.

Beltway

#444
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 02:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:38:04 AM
The incentive for NYC HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 10 years of operation of HQ2.  Now that they canceled, those figures have evaporated.
If I remember correctly, they were talking 25 k jobs. $2.7B/year means each job generate more than $100k in taxes a year. WHich I find hard to believe, even if all the taxes paid by those folks are included. Especially given how big companies manage to optimize their taxation
Overall increased economic activity from the complex and the employees, secondary and cumulative impacts.  Very conceivable estimates.
Such estimates make little, if any, assumptions about factors outside the scope of the project. Would be correct for a random spot on a map. But it is  NYC of all places. Economy is limited by whatever else, including subway throughput and the amount of land available for residences.

The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this.  Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.

Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test.  With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this.  Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

kalvado

Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this.  Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.

Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test.  With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this.  Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Wake me up when it is 100 years. And adjust for inflation - tax incentives usually kick in early in the project, and tax revenue usually comes towards the end.

And NYC doesn't need new revenue - it needs spending control. School system spending driven by a strong union is the biggest problem.

Beltway

Quote from: kalvado on February 16, 2019, 01:29:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 16, 2019, 12:54:08 PM
The so-called news media has done a poor job of reporting on this.  Apparently the incentive for NYC Amazon HQ2 was a $3 billion tax break from the estimated $27 billion in tax revenue to the city and state in the first 25 years of operation of HQ2.
Those numbers do pass a reasonableness test.  With the massive budget deficits at the city and state level, they are only hurting themselves when the sabotage a plan like this.  Not like they can't benefit from a new corporate headquarters in their city.
Wake me up when it is 100 years. And adjust for inflation - tax incentives usually kick in early in the project, and tax revenue usually comes towards the end.
And NYC doesn't need new revenue - it needs spending control. School system spending driven by a strong union is the biggest problem.

Having just a little bit of socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant.  Mr. DeBlasio seems to think that when it comes to socialism, he can control just how much of it is OK.  It don't work that way.  Countries that have tried socialism find out that, sooner or later, they have to backtrack toward capitalism after finding out the hard way that socialism doesn't work.  Sweden has lowered taxes, de-regulated business laws, privatized social security, and is trying to control immigration.  They lowered their standard of living to uncomfortable levels and are now trying to walk their socialism back.  They may succeed, good luck to them.

My question is why try policies that have failed everywhere they have been tried, every time they have been tried, by everyone that has tried them?  Venezuela may survive and recover from the nightmares of Chavez and Maduro, but it could take decades.  They were once one of the wealthiest countries in the world - now one of the poorest. Why subject your population to that misery and suffering?

Just how long will Mr. DeBlasio keep his soda tax in place?  From everything I have read, it is another failure (socialism always mandates behaviors "for your own good").
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Rothman

The idea that those estimates of revenue are to be trusted baffles the mind.

I found The New York Times' Editorial Board's opinion on the matter to be ridiculously naive.  The idea that even if those funds were realized that they would be easily funneled into the subway (MTA) was outright childish.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

hbelkins

I'm just laughing at Cuomo throwing AOC under the bus on this.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Takumi

#449
QuoteHaving just a little bit of socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant.
Ehhh...I can’t agree with that. Some government oversight is fine in most areas. Too much in the other direction and you end up with The Jungle.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.