On 2005.07.05, I attended the Toronto and East York City Council meeting at Toronto City Hall. Among its various topics was a so-called status report concerning the Foundry District. After a lengthy delay, the matter was taken up at 15:25, and here are my notes.

Ken Ferguson

I’ll try to be brief because we are indeed behind [in this meeting] and this is just a status report. The notion that somehow rezoning our property on Eastern Ave. is a threat to the film industry and the amount of available space in the Studio District: Firstly, you probably know by now that we are the selected applicant by TEDCO to build the megastudio on the Toronto port lands. I can assure you we are very, very, very, very close to signing a lease – and removing some of the mystique from this process, which is why people are concerned.

It is unfortunate that our rezoning application is coming forth at the same time. I would have liked to have had a shovel in the ground to remove some of the ideas that we aren’t going ahead with that project. [They have a $1 million letter of credit.] It only makes sense, as we sit on 18 acres of Eastern Ave., to consider what is going to happen with that. One site there holds our existing studios; the other is the A.R. Clarke Tannery, a vacant piece of land. We’d originally bought that land to develop studios on, but since we won the port lands, we won’t be developing there. And that leaves nine acres of land where we have our existing property. I have told the film industry repeatedly, and I will say it again today: We will not take one square inch of that property out of production until there is more than enough [space] down on the port lands.

The people out on the West Don Lands are our friends. We’re not going anywhere. I do want to point out, however, that of the nine acres we have left, there’s an equal amount of available land that is owned by other studio owners. Those people are going to sit here today and tell you that there is a threat to the film industry because we – after putting millions of dollars [into the development] – are [threatening to move out]. And next door to us is Canada Metal, and [another 9-acre plot]. You have to ask just what those people are doing for the Studio District.

We have met with the public over the last six months in a very interesting process. Consultation isn’t always quiet. And consultation is going to continue. We did not want to be part of a process like [the approval of Canadian Tire on Lake Shore]. I want to give credit to the people who have come out to that process, and it’s an ongoing process; we are not going to walk away from this neighbourhood without [further consulting with them].


Councillor Case Ootes asks what’s on the property.

A.: Our studios are housed on half of that site – the former Toronto Iron Works buildings that were converted into studios.

Q.: Does anybody else own any studios?

A.: No [not on our property].

Q.: When can we expect a conclusion of the deal with TEDCO?

A.: I am literally going from this meeting to the TEDCO office. [Doubtful, as it would later turn out.] We hope to have something in the ground sometime in the winter.

Q.: So when that happens, your studio will close.

A.: No. Our commitment is to build 550,000 square feet of studios plus another 500,000 square feet of offices [in a $100 million development]. We’ll keep the old studios open, but at some point everybody’s going to want to be down at the new studios.

Councillor Pantalone interrupts to state that the port lands are not part of the area being discussed. The chair states that he is correct.

Q.: What’s the size of the studio on this property?

A.: There’s approximately 240,000 square feet of buildings.

Q.: What we do with this property is not going to affect your [intentions].

A.: We are committed to our property in the Port Lands.

Q. from Paula Fletcher, asking about high-rise development on Canada Metal.

A.: I’m not sure I understand the question – that the Canada Metal site would not be developed?

Q.: The Save the Studio District Coalition says the studios planned for development on the Canada Metal site would not be approved if the Foundry District would be.

A.: Everybody gravitates toward residential usage of our site, but we’re interested in employment usages, so I don’t see why studios wouldn’t qualify.

Q.: Are you expecting 100% social housing on this site?

A.: It’s hit us broadside. It’s absolutely not our intention. I don’t know where that’s come from.

Sharon Howard

“Resident of Riverdale.” I’m opposed to any zoning changes to residential. Huge numbers of residents are employed in the film industry and want the area to stay as a film studio and an employment district. It’s close to home. South Riverdale has been undergoing a positive, visible change over the last years. [Houses are improving,] people are walking down the streets with pride; it feels like a happy community. This can be attributed to employment found in the film industry. Neighbours do not need more housing or hotels or whatever is planned to be in there; they need the jobs – a clean job alternative and why the neighbourhood has gone up so much.

The film district is bounded by Lake Shore and Eastern, which isn’t a residential district. I really feel that’s an ideal situation.


Q. from Fletcher: You do know that TFS has won the RFP for a megastudio in the port lands. Are you aware that the film community and the film board support that large studio in the port lands?

A.: There has been talk about public consultations, but I’ve not really heard that, Paula. We go to these public consultation meetings and are told what’s going to happen [during them].

Q.: [The RFP is years old.] I see you at the port-lands meetings. Are you in favour of big-box stores for this site?

A.: No. It can accommodate a lot of small usages. The big box – I don’t think a lot of profits stay in the community. And the employees aren’t the beneficiaries of the [profits].

Q.: You’re assuming that TFS will continue to run the studios on Eastern as well.

A.: Well, I would hope, but if it cannot happen, I would definitely ask it stay where it is. We can’t keep putting housing without employment for people.

Q.: Yes, but if it moved to the port lands, either double studios or something happens on that land, and is that what you’re assuming the film industry will do? Double the studios on that land?

A.: Well, if they can do it, why not?

Paul Kenyon, Absolute Location Support Services

Is a former location manager. Owns a company supplying equipment to film and TV. There is overwhelming support for the major studio being proposed by the applicant. Film workers are fearful of derailing that process, and are reluctant to depute in the matter before you. According to the OMDC, there is 1.3 million square feet of studio space in Toronto. If this goes through, there will be a reduction in stock of about 900,000 square feet – a net loss of 500,000 square feet [after the port-lands studio goes up]. There’s been no talk of replacement space.

The studio feasibility study states that a clear and demonstrable deficit is found in existing soundstages. TEDCO’s RFP says quite clearly that this must be adjunctive or additional space, not replacement space. These are designed for the express purpose of attracting major productions from the U.S. The people using 629 Eastern are indigenous Canadian productions, or lower-budget productions, hence are not in conflict with the new studio, though the viability of the latter could be in question if both are running simultaneously.

Everyone, with very few exceptions, wants a major studio built, but not at the expense of taxpayers or indigenous Canadian production. This development would replace affordable studio space with high-rent, purpose-built studios. If you must consider this rezoning, do so after the new studio has been constructed. We seem to be making haphazard decisions about bits of the industry instead of considering where the entire industry is going.

Film uses are clean, non-invasive. Film is an economic cluster worth fostering according to the city. Rezoning 629 Eastern will result in less studio space, not more, and is diametrically opposed to all the [existing city policies].


Q. from Pam McConnell: Where is your property?

A.: 207 Eastern.

Q.: So that’s in the West Don Lands.

A.: Yes. And three other owners and I received termination notices last week.

Q.: You’re in studio space that is on the list for concern in terms of the loss of studio space.

A.: No. I’m not in that space. I don’t operate a studio, councillor.

Q.: You’re in property that has to be relocated—

A.: Yes, but it’s not a studio space.

Q.: There are a lot of studio spaces in the West Don Lands that have to be relocated, right?

A.: Yes, that’s correct.

Q.: And that is on the list. But all those buildings are set to be relocated. Has that not been communicated to the tenants?

A.: That’s news to me. [Names two buildings where he has no news about relocation.]

Q. [possibly from Paula Fletcher – at some point that my notes do not capture, she started asking the questions]: That was communicated very clearly. There are other studio spaces on East Bayfront; a similar commitment, I’m assuming, would be appropriate from the Waterfront Corporation.

A.: Councillor, I’d be delighted if that were accurate, but the termination of leases was issued on Thursday.

Q.: There’s a second part to the relocation. The numbers you are talking about include relocation needs in the West Don Lands and the East Bayfront.

A.: The paper you’re relying on showing a gross loss of 946,900 square feet are studios that are offline now, or are a pile of rubble, or have been subject to lease terminations.

Q.: I can assure you that, in a public meeting last night, with a nod of secretariat behind me, they’re all being relocated.

A.: That’s wonderful news, councillor.

Q.: If we don’t rezone Eastern Ave. and it can’t be sold and it puts in jeopardy the studio in the port lands, there would be a further loss of potential space, would there not?

A.: The numbers don’t lie. The studio could be sold now or later. The province says we need more than 1.3 million square feet, and in point of fact we’re losing space.

Q.: I’m talking about the difference between somebody who owns a property and buys another one as opposed to tenancy. If you can’t sell the house you’re living in, you might not be able to buy the new one.

A.: Maybe the Rose Corp. should not have put in its bid that it’s adjunctive space.

Q.: Would you be upset if we lost a Toronto rather than an international industry?

A.: I derive my livelihood based on the viability of the film and television industry. I don’t know where you’re going with this but the simple answer is we need more space, not less of it.

Q. from Fletcher: I understand the angst in the West Don Lands and East Bayfront, but I’m a bit surprised you haven’t heard about relocation.

A.: Councillor, we’re talking about studios; I’m not a studio.

Q.: There is a relocation policy. You have shown that you have gone to some other sites, that they’re actively looking to relocate; you are number one because the berm is being built there. Have you not been shown other sites?

A.: I have, and I’m grateful for that, but we were only shown other sites after we filed an environmental assessment. They’re working with us and FoodShare, not the studios being talked about here.

Case Ootes notes that the discussion has extended beyond the matter before us.

Daniel Friesen

I’m a resident and a homeowner of the area adjacent to the site. I am opposed to the rezoning and I would like to see our Studio District and employment facilities saved, however that looks, and in fact expanded, and not see residential expansion in the area. [Concerned with environmental conditions on site, including dust.] The tannery fire in 2001 resulted in evacuations – luckily, not me, but my neighbour. We were told the site would be capped; it was not. We were told to be patient with their environmental assessment. I would like to know what steps have been taken to protect the residents. Until the community has been informed of health risks, nothing should happen.

I’ve been watching from across the street since 1998 when we bought the house, and nothing of consequence has happened on that site in that time.

Traffic has increased in areas of the community by over 1,000%. Eastern is definitely a highway now since the Gardiner came down. So why is the city not dealing with this separately from this zoning proposal? Implications of air quality need to be assessed now and independently of this zoning application. I am asking Council to put our health and well-being ahead of any zoning applications. It’s disturbing that Council seems to wait for a developer’s initiative before dealing with our health and well-being.

A lot of bad land is just sitting there because people don’t know what to do with it.

The community consultation process has been largely lip service. I’m self-employed and there is no damn way I would be here today if there was a meeting in the evening and I showed up for it. I live right across the street from the whole thing and I’m concerned about it. Reliable information has not been presented. We were told there would only be this meeting and a meeting before the full city council in September.


Paula Fletcher talks about environmental reports on soil and groundwater.

Q.: Were you aware that is a required part of the application?

A.: Now it’s required?

Q.: Now it’s required as part of the application.

Linda Lynch

I’ve been a resident of that community for 22 years, about a block and a half from the site. I was a former member of the board of health for that community. I have an office on Carlaw and am buying a house there. Back in 1991, we held a lengthy process led by Marilyn Churley and Jack Layton and found an economic replacement – at the time, Riverdale was almost the poorest per capita income area in the country. So we replaced it with the Studio District, a protected employment area. I spoke to Mr. Steiner at TEDCO and he assured me that this rezoning has nothing to do with the megastudio. So what’s the rush? Why are we hurrying the rezoning of a successful, protected zoning area? 7,000 people moved into the area, and those are your figures. Businesses rely on the film industry along Eastern to eke out a living.

Why are we suddenly in an uproar here in a process that is a bit shaky in information-sharing, and in [a neighbourhood] that is supposed to protect employment areas? [We shouldn’t be] letting developers put pressure for high-profit residential ventures. Only on Thursday before a long weekend did people in a working-class neighbourhood receive notice of this meeting and have to figure out how to get on a list and get a deputation in to you.

I don’t know why you can’t just refer this item back to your next meeting to give lots of time for the community to get out here, for staff to start looking at the impacts on the neighbourhood. And that is interesting too. This is supposed to be a status report; why is it filled with a lot of discussion of rezoning? I don’t understand why a proponent is driving your planning process. We’re all very confused.

The mayor just put together a three-person task force where neighbourhoods would plan their future. Well, I can assure you that well over 80% of the community is not here. If TEDCO confirms that this is not tied to the megastudio, then I ask you, councillors, what’s the rush?


Q. from Fletcher: Were you not at the last meeting when the July 5 meeting was put forward? I believe you were there.

A.: Yes, Councillor, but you were very gracious enough to inform us that there would be a planning report, but nobody got that until Thursday. You were asked what the next process steps were. And you said July 5; you didn’t tell us about the Committee of Adjustment. And then you said September 25, but you didn’t tell us that it could be propelled to Council in July. Mr. Wright told us there would be a report coming out to prepare our comments for this meeting. We didn’t have the information. You didn’t tell us that this whole mishmash is going to Policy and Finance tomorrow. What about the business residents you are having a meeting with tomorrow to present this whole thing to [where TFS will present a rezoning application]? I think you should defer this until everybody is informed; a proper meeting schedule is set; and everybody can contribute.

Q. from Councillor Walker: This appears to be about a rezoning of the studios into hotel and residential.

A.: This is the first time the community has seen the word “hotel.”

Q.: [Unintelligible about “vacating”] Who submitted an application?

A.: The Rose Corp. and TFS are very far down the road of submitting applications. When they stand before the community, they have a whole line of staff [sitting] there. We listened to them talk at us for two hours at the second-last meeting and they gave us ten minutes to ask question. We’ve always worked very well with Council, but it seems every time we turn around the game has changed, some new use has been added. At the last meeting, they presented slides – economic study, built-form studies. Are you ready for this? Four 14-storey buildings of high-density housing. Mr. Ferguson said that people who want to develop Canada Metal as housing [view that as] perfectly compatible. In another case [St. Aloysius], Council said that studios were incompatible. They are!

About big boxes: In another slide [at a meeting], a Home Depot from Chicago was shown. So it’s happening.

Peter Lucas, Ontario Film and Television Studio Owners Association

We represent a significant proportion of film studios and ancillary space in Toronto. We’ve done nine major TV and movie projects in the last 12 months. The proposed zoning would effectively gut the film campus.

An increasing number of people in the film industry have made Riverdale their home now. The rezoning would also create a shortfall of film production space in Toronto when space is already in short supply. It would also place incompatible usages alongside studio usages [which require 24-hour access]. The effects will not be mitigated by the proposed megastudio. Documents state that the megastudio will provide a new category of studio.

By rejecting the application, Toronto will send a strong message that it intends to protect its employment zones. This is signed by Cinespace Studios, Showline Studios, Wallace Studios.

Suzanne McCormick

[Shows a slide of the study area.] It appears that recommendations in the status report assume that the area will be rezoned. Industries in the study area employ over 7,000 people. The Official Plan states that Council will not consider rezoning an employment area without commissioning a study, including one on environmental conditions. Where is that study?

Has a comprehensive review that demonstrates these lands are not required for long-term employment been completed? Where is that study?

City staff has not received the applicant’s final economic report. Would it not be prudent to wait for this information?

Has the Officer of Health provided a report on the health implications on redeveloping this toxic soil site, including the continuing unmonitored air quality? Where is that report? [Addition from scribe: Does it include a noncompete clause that ensures TFS will be the sole studio on the port lands?]

Has the film and TV office evaluated the loss of studio space on the industry? Where is that report?

Has TEDCO supplied a comprehensive report detailing lands suitable for studio space to companies other than TFS? Where is that report?

People who attended community consultations were told that the plan was to allow 6-, 9-, and 14-storey residential developments. Residential is about four storeys high at Pape and Eastern. South Riverdale residents say over and over and over again: No high-rise buildings! North of Eastern Ave. is mostly two- and three-storey single-family dwellings.

This area is part of the Studio District, a clean industry replacing the toxic industries of previous years. Area residents are proud of the Studio District, moved there because of it, and work there. The Studio District is the economic engine of South Riverdale.

Councillors, make your decision, and make it an informed decision, because it affects all Torontonians. Wait till all the information is before you.

Please: Don’t let the area south of Eastern Avenue be the dream location for developers’ signs.

Mark Flowers, Davies Howe Partners

A lawyer who represents two landowners, 721 Eastern and 30 Booth. Also Cinespace, which leases land at 30 Booth. Those properties are in the South of Eastern study. As for the status report:

Land uses: Our clients are very concerned about the proposed introduction of residential and other sensitive uses and their impact on employment. Concerns are shared by planning staff – residential will affect the entire employment area, undermining the integrity of “employment policies for the area.” Council is not being asked to endorse or adopt the applicant’s development principles, but our clients have concerns about a mix of uses.

Comprehensive study: Any Council decision would be premature without a comprehensive study on employment. [Quotes various sections of the Official Plan.]

Proposed expansion of study-area boundaries: This report before us today seeks to expand boundaries to Coxwell and down to the lake, thus including the port lands, which would conceal the impact on the actual zone we are concerned with.


Q. from Fletcher: You’re counsel for 80 Booth?

A.: 30.

Q.: And Cinespace.

A.: We represent Cinespace, but they have different studios. They also have one at 30 Booth owned by a numbered company.

Q.: 721 Eastern – we’re very interested in that, because 721 Eastern is the Canada Metal site.

A.: Canada Metal is a tenant on the property. I don’t represent them.

Q.: Are there any environmental reports?

A.: I don’t have any. I’m not their environmental representative.

Q.: Can you make available any environmental reports you might have?

A.: I’m not aware of any.

Q.: Canada Metal is the largest tax debtor in the city.

A.: I’m not aware of that.

Q.: You’re not aware of the tax records?

A.: I’m not aware.

Terri-Lynn Leeking

On the record as opposed. Studios should not be “destroyed by housing developments.” TFS held four meetings. The first three meetings we sat and listened to the very vague plans for these properties. Prior to the fourth meeting, I tried to arrange a community-only meeting with Councillor Fletcher; I didn’t receive any support on this. We want to make sure that this item doesn’t get fast-tracked prior to [September].

I know how important it is to retain additional studio space. We chose to live here, within the Studio District, for the convenience of work as well as the heritage and character of the neighbourhood. [Property values may be affected by the new development.] We need full economic study; this isn’t a simple rezoning matter. It could seriously affect jobs within the industry.

Ken Ferguson informed me in an E-mail that he intends to move the TFS to the port lands. Showline [et al.] will be staying in our area, so it will remain a Studio District, one we should expand and support.

[They asked for meeting space, which they were offered at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre, but with restrictions on “our freedom of speech.” So she started a petition, with 179 signatures from residents within 80m of Eastern Ave.] Once we reach our goal of over 4,000 signatures, we will provide a copy to the full city council [and others].


Q. from Walker: How would they know what you were going to say?

A.: I was instructed by Paul Young and Joe Lobko “that at no time was anyone allowed to talk about not wanting low-income housing, and unless we could guarantee that, we could not have the meeting there.”

Q.: Is this a city facility?

A. from unidentfiable voice: No.

Megan Torza

On behalf of Joe Lobko, she reads the letter he sent, for some unfathomable reason. Don’t waste our time like this, please. We’re perfectly capable of reading a three-page letter.

[TK letter dated July 4 from Ferguson to Janet Davis]

Wayne Porter

I live adjacent to the TFS site. I would like to go on the record as saying I am totally opposed to the rezoning of this site. I would like to see it remain as a Studio District and employment for that purpose. I would in fact like to see it expanded and supported, not replaced with housing development. Unfortunately, what has happened in our residence [sic], which was very clear in our petitioning [sic], was that we were being told we were either getting a big-box store or this 14-storey building, which leads me to believe that the community itself does not understand what is going on. We would like to get that clarified. I would like to have that clarified.

The report refers to a community working group. We in the community remain totally in the dark. We don’t know who these people are who are supposed to be representing us, and as far as I’m concerned they don’t represent us because we don’t know who they are.

So, bottom line for me as a resident who saw this fence go up with this “Largest Canadian film studio coming to Toronto” for four years and a week ago it was painted over… I particularly don’t want to see rezoning at this time. I am not opposed to what Ken and the studio would like to do; I just don’t think that our community has a clear understanding, as I don’t, of what they want to do. That’s why I’m opposing it at this time.

Ms Jones [first name unintelligible, but presumably it’s Skeeter Jones]

A ten-year owner of a store on Queen St., just up from 629 Eastern Ave. I closed my store today just to be here. This is a luxury other store owners do not have, nor were they made aware of these meetings. 48 businesses have left in the last two years. Many of us were pioneers in the neighbourhood; we were robbed and assaulted, and we survived. And now it’s being proposed that a shopping complex be built just below us to compete with us.

Our shops are not owned by corporations. They are small businesses in the real sense of the word; we eat when you shop. To move a complex of high-end polished stores in after we have paid our dues and struggled as far as we have is unconscionable. No improvements have been made to Queen St. in the last 10 years that were not started by business. Trees died; a needle-exchange program was put in place right across the street from a bar we’ve tried to close for 15 years.

Woodgreen was supposed to be mixed housing, and is now a three-block-long cinderblock. It was later converted not just to all-housing but hard-to-house. [No wonder we’re suspicious.]

The film industry has represented a noticeable part of our business. How long can we be known as the film district with no production companies? [Concerned about impact of a large project on small businesses.]

Please don’t ruin our neighbourhood.


Q. from Fletcher: Are you aware that the as-of-right zoning is big box? They can do that without asking you or me or anyone else.

A.: I appreciate that, but we were asked about Woodgreen and we were lied to. It wasn’t that it was social housing, ma’am, but it was built on a main street. Our neighbourhood has no less than nine social housing developments on the main street, and the streetscape is over.

Q.: Has the chair of the Leslieville Business Association talked this over with you?

A.: Yes, but there are only four members on it. It’s a very fractured neighbourhood.

Richard Walker

I’m a second-generation film worker. I’ve watched the industry since the early ’60s, watched us chase after smaller and smaller pieces of the pie. To eliminate more square footage is just wrong. [Lists other studios we’ve lost.] It’s all very nice to get a bright shining new 500,000-square-foot studio, but it’s not replacing any of the studios we’d lost over the years, especially with two U.S. productions wanting one million square feet of studio space [recently] having to [reject] us.


Q. from Walker: Your recommendation would be to refuse a zoning application?

A.: Yes.

Michael Rosenberg

Report Nº 14 seems to be a very thin and brief representation of what was discussed at the meeting, and it uses such vague expressions as “the community wants a voice in the process.” There was a reasonable amount of detail discussed at the meetings. A lot of that material was not placed in the report; this is the time when all that information should come out. Obviously most of the councillors here have not been to those meetings. It doesn’t seem to be that these ideas have been put before you.

It does state in here that there was community objection, it doesn’t attempt in any way to represent what the community was saying, and only the comments from the community that were moderately compatible with the proposal are even given here. So you don’t have a really good idea of what was actually stated.

There seem to be more than two sides of this – Lobko saying the city has not listened to the community. I hope you don’t adopt Recommendation 1, which suggests the applicant’s proposed development principles be the basis of further discussion. Could you amend that to say that you have received them and they would be part of a future discussion? It seems odd to have the applicant’s proposals attached to the report, but not the community’s, and at least implying that you’re working from these proposals.

At Eastern, there would be a park and zero- or 6-storey buildings, 9-storey in the middle, and 4- or 14-storey at Lake Shore. The general idea is that the north end should be 3-storey buildings to fit in with Eastern and the park. Changing the others to 6 and 9 rather than 9 and 14, with taller buildings in the centre, would work much better. Keep tall buildings away from the main streets, as opposed to the [policies listed in the] Official Plan.


[Scribe missed some remarks by Paula Fletcher.] One as-of-right use includes a big-box store. Some people have been upset about Canadian Tire moving, just like that, as of right, onto the gateway to the port lands. Esso, moving in right at Carlaw and Eastern. Linda, I’d rather you not take my picture here. (“Is it against the law?”) There have been hundreds and hundreds of people at public meetings, and lots of consultants and lobbyists on this file. Welcome, former Metro Councillor. We can ask staff to do certain things that have come out. There are environmental issues, like Canada Metal, which contaminated the whole of South Riverdale. They want it cleaned up no matter what. There are issues around height and environmental requirements.

Much of the space that studios are losing is industrial or owned by TEDCO, which is calling in its chits on that land.

And the applicant won an RFP. I can’t take that away; sorry. They’re coming very close to signing a lease, as I understand it. The film board on which I sit is fairly supportive of a megastudio. There’s people in the community who don’t want a film studio on the port lands. There’s another issue, then: The city has a plan for the port lands, and the Waterfront Corp. is standing behind the plan.

I am committing that we will continue the consultation. There is [a consultation ongoing] on businesses on Lake Shore, and [we will] continue those to Leslieville and Riverside.

Question from Councillor Walker

Q. from Walker to Paula Fletcher: Are you looking favorably on this rezoning?

A.: Councillor Walker, this is a status report.

I left at 2005.07.05 17:24.

The foregoing posting appeared on Joe Clark’s personal Weblog on 2005.07.10 15:41. This presentation was designed for printing and omits components that make sense only onscreen. (If you are seeing this on a screen, then the page stylesheet was not loaded or not loaded properly.) The permanent link is:

(Values you enter are stored and may be published)



First of all, I quit. If you must proceed:

Copyright © 2004–2023