Open thread for Lot 5

Tonight the Chapel Hill Town Council approved General Development Agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the Ram Development Company to build some tall buildings on the town-owned Parking lot 5 as well as a request for expedited review of the development.

Here's an open thread to share our opinions about it so we don't have to take over other topics. Have at it!

Total votes: 200

Comments

I appreciate the council amending the agreement to require the 20% energy savings.

They didn't get a firm requirement and they won't get it through the SUP process. Their leverage on both the hazardous waste liability and AIA 2030/ASHRAE %20 energy targets went poof.

Kudos to both Jim and Laurin. Jim really spelled it out..."walk the talk"... and held his ground in the face of both an unpopular stance with his colleagues and the snarling VP Cummings.

Sad that his words didn't resonate on the UNC master plan rework vote.

WillR,

From what I heard I believe that the Council did instruct the Manager to enter into the contract with the 20% energy efficiency as one of the requirements. They allowed him to negotiate minor changes to encourage RAM to agree to this stipulation.

Regarding the hazardous waste liability: as was pointed out to Council, once you identify that there is a hazardous waste condition you are liable for its cleanup whether you choose to go forward on a project or not. While I wouldn't want to see the Town burdened by a $10 million dollar clean-up bill ((I'm just throwing this out as a really, really bad hypothetical situation) I believe that we have a moral obligation to future generations to clean up any hazardous situation on our property and to do it as soon as possible once it is identified. Would we be better off if we left Lot 5 as it is and then found out 10 years later that we've been polluting the groundwater for that length of time? If it was a private owner we wouldn't have any hesitation to hold them liable. We should hold ourselves to that same standard.

GeorgeC, I agree that we have an obligation to remediate the hazardous waste problem if necessary but that's not the whole story.... I used to due hazardous waste assessments (way back in the '80s) for developers doing due diligence on projects - maybe requirements and procedures have changed since then but a few comments made last night on this issue were fishy.

How is it we're entering into this project without assessing our liability to start with?

We were told less than a year ago we'd have a $500K outlay for projects on Wallace Deck and Lot #5. Council now says our outlay is capped at $7.5M - a cap I've said we wouldn't stick to... for just RAM's sweet spot million dollar condos on Lot #5.

Now we see that the Town faces a known financial risk, environmental remediation, that could cost millions. Where's the due diligence on the cusp of building this beast?

Didn't you find it strange that the second assessment was "questionable" because it wasn't "authorized"? And what's this about "smelling" the dirt?

In the mid-'80s we used to hand auger samples from sites lot Lot #5. We then did field test using chemical sniffers and field assay kits - which were pretty darn accurate. I'm sure 20 years on field level test and equipment has improved significantly.

Samples were returned to the lab for further analysis if either the field assays indicated problems or it was a base sample. Further, we used site maps to find buried tanks, etc. to build a grid and search for problems. And we did this all for quite a modest cost.

Yes, we would "smell" the sample but we always tested.

I go into detail here to give you a sense of how cheap and easy it is to KNOW if there's a liability or not.

BE HONEST.

I thought Ralph Karpinos was pretty clear that the SUP couldn't be used to "force" a %20 energy conservation plank into the plan. Sure, they're going to try to negotiate something in but there's no way make RAM accept.

I couldn't believe that Council was willing to trade more elements away to get this... They've negotiated so much of the value of this project away - anymore just compounds their mistake.

Most of Council continued to conflate AIA 2030 , ASHRAE %20 and LEEDs - which means that they really don't have a handle on the environmental LEADERSHIP question. And to seriously consider, as Sally Greene suggested, that the contractor commit to a reduction without a co-commitment verification of reductions by an outside authority - well - that was just another disappointment in a long line of disappointments with this project.

Council needs to be honest with the costs - $7.5M + $1-10M for environmental remediation + $5-18M value of property + $??M discount on air rights + $2-4M for the recommended construction consultancies + the absolutely predictable inflation in the outlay you know RAM will come back to us for after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd year.

Total real and potential public outlay - between $18.5 to $40M.

BE HONEST.

The public utility of this project is approaching zilch. The cost are high with built-in liabilities to push it higher.

Council screwed up big time last night.

Of course, who (other than a few wonks here) remembers who approved Nationsbank?

Twenty years from now - heck, maybe even 2 years from now - folks won't remember who was responsible for saddling our Town with this white elephant, opening the door to sub-par development that'll kill the charm of downtown and undercutting the Town's leadership on environmental issues.

Yep, looks like the "rah rah" growth folks hit the trifecta last night....

Will, I'm increasingly out of the loop on local stuff, but for what it's worth, I don't see the Lot 5 debacle as an example of rah-rah growth. I see it as an example of negligence and stupidity by our elected officials.

I would have been on the losing side of this sad vote, for sure, but not for the reasons presented here. The whole concept has sucked from the get-go. Better to leave the lot alone for the next decade than to do something this idiotic.

Do you see any possible recourse? This is one of those times I wish I was a lawyer because I'd be scrambling to come up with every litigation angle possible to stop this.

I characterize this as "rah rah" because the proponents pushed this deal inspite of all common sense. As each major issue cropped up - issues of fiscal responsibility, scope, environmental consequences, leadership - the "rah rah" group dismissed concerns instead of addressing them.

I was prepared to tepidly endorse this proposal when Wallace Deck was part of it - when the cost was contained and the taxpayer liability was understood and measured accordingly. After the lid was lifted in Oct. and as the process continued without redress, well, they lost my vote.

As far as stopping this, I can think of a few possibilities.

Citizens have sued their towns when their elected officials showed poor judgment and entered into questionable deals. That seems a reach (though possible). You might remember the Rosemary Square debacle. Not really an example I'd like to emulate but one worth considering.

Another possibility is to lodge a complaint with the North Carolina Local Government Commission in terms of financing the project. I'm exploring redress through that organization now. It seems that the potential liabilities and the flaky fiscal projections around this project would require more due diligence than currently shown.

I'm open to other suggestions.

I've spoken with the NC LGC. They couldn't find a record right of the bat of the following assertion from last night's packet:

We propose a borrowing to pay for the spaces that will require the approval of the North Carolina Local Government Commission (Commission). We have sought advice from the Commission, and have received confirmation that our funding approach is reasonable.

We have learned from the Commission that it would be appropriate to hold the required public hearing and adopt the required resolution near the end of the project, rather than now. In the draft Agreement, the Developer will notify the Town 90 days in advance of the estimated completion date, so that the Town may undertake the required steps to receive Commission approval in a timely manner and be able meet our obligation under the Agreement to purchase the parking facility when it is complete.

Agenda #6

I've called the Town Manager to see what records - financial projections, schedule of payments, etc. - we submitted as part of the discussion. I also asked for the NC LGC contact. Given that info, I should be able to get the NC LGC file documenting their end of the discussion.

It'll be interesting to see what projections were used to get the NC LGC's "pre-approval" (something the person I talked to said they really don't do - they might advise but they don't pre-approve).

what happened to all that old brick that they have stored that from that house on franklin street that they tore down about 10 years to make the first bapist church bigger.

Thanks, Will. I see what you're saying.

Let me know what I can do, if anything, to help. Best to reach me at BlueNC.

We have learned from the Commission that it would be appropriate to hold the required public hearing and adopt the required resolution near the end of the project, rather than now.

This seems rather bizarre if I understand it correctly. A critical piece of the financing puzzle left unaddressed until the project is so far underway that there's no turning back? It would seem both fiscally irresponsible and illegal.

PS All these math questions are killin' me!

The Chapel Hill Herald reiterated its support for the project yesterday in an editorial, asking folks to look at the big picture-

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/chhedits/57-819384.cfm

I'm sure Will will tell us how misguided their opinion is, and that's fine.

I and other critics haven't said we shouldn't work on vitalizing Downtown or even if we should do a project like the RAM project, but to suggest that the Downtown will "wither" because we don't do this particular project - well - that's a major stretch.

I particularly liked this comment:

"But you can't always get all the stars aligned perfectly. Sometimes, focusing on every minute detail, the council can nickel and dime a worthwhile project to death."

Let's see, last Spring Council and RAM agreed for a joint development of Wallace Deck and Lot #5 for a price 15 times less than what we're SUPPOSEDLY going to pay.

By Fall we'd cut the project in half, decreased the public component, had the affordable housing folks paying more and walking further... With the rapid increase in value of the deal to RAM but the contribution by the public - $7.5M direct expenditure + $5-18M property value + $1-2M in further consulting fees + an open ended environmental remediation liability, etc. ad nauseum, wll, I'd say the stars aren't misaligned, they're falling out of the sky...

Then add in (or subtract out) the diminished public utility - shrinking public space, expensive and more expensive housing, no community anchor, etc. and the comment that the stars haven't aligned perfectly - well - it's really laughable.

This particular deal is broken. Tweaking the environmental commitment is not going to fix the fiscal problems. Tweaking the parking allotment isn't going to fix the fact we're building million dollar condos on the publics dime yet getting such a poor social return.

But you know that Tom. You've said you're willing to overlook those warts. This taxpayer, long time resident and citizen of Chapel Hill isn't....

I'm sure Bill and a few other folks on the Council would like folks like the Kenan-Flagler financial guys, long time Downtown residents and business owners, me, to just shut up and let them squander an absolutely wonderful resource on such a pathetically flawed deal....

And, I guess, from your comment, you also want me to just sit back and watch RAM eat our citizens lunch....

Is there a bar too high for you and Bill? What will you do if we reach it?

Will-

I don't have a problem with your speaking out on this issue or any other issue.

I do have a problem with your intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Since you lost for Town Council, every time someone in town does something you disagree with, you seem to question their motives or intelligence. All one has to do is read virtually any thread on OP you have participated on in the last year to see that.

I spent more time working for your election than virtually anyone but yourself but it saddens me to say that I am very, very glad you lost because I don't think you have shown the capability to constructively advocate for your point of view- you would rather throw bombs at people.

I'm glad the voters of Chapel Hill were smarter than I was. I may have disagreed with some things Ed Harrison did during his first term, but he is respectful and listens to other people's views and I'm glad folks saw that and reelected him.

I agree with much of what you advocate for but your tone is counterproductive and makes it impossible for most folks to want to work with you. That's all I have to say about that.

This may not be a popular thing for me to say but I'm saying it anyway. It's time for someone to call you out, not for speaking out, but for the way you speak out.

Thanks Tom for the insight, does this mean you're working on Bill's campaign in 2007?

Back to the substance of my argument, how does a Sierra Club guy support this project? What would you have done differently?

What about the fiscal component? Why am I troubled that the cost went up 15-fold (or more), the footprint shrank by more than half and the public utility has shrunk - yet you're not.

Oh, funny comment about Ed considering....

I have to say, i agree with pretty much everything Tom wrote above. I regret supporting your campaign in 2005, Will. if you give us the opportunity, I won't make the same mistake again.

But back to the topic at hand; i pretty much agree with the Herald editorial. I'm not crazy about every aspect of this project. But I think the potential for the many good impacts it can have are worth the risk.

Will,
I agree with Tom and Ruby on this - "your tone is counterproductive and makes it impossible for most folks to want to work with you"

Thanks Ruby and Tom, it's good to know where one stands.

Suggesting my criticism of Lot #5 was spawned because I'm upset about losing an election is a good way to marginalize not only my concerns about this project but pretty much anything I've stood for since - districting, muni-networking, technology in town, development, the LAC process and Carolina North, etc.

My principled stands couldn't possibly be true if they are motivated by anger - kind of a tired old page from the play book.

The politics of marginalization are pretty clear - and I fully expected them to come into play at some point this year.

Thanks for getting it out there early guys.

I don't recall anyone talking about anger. It's mostly about your single-mindedness, Will. It's not a helpful in a position where you have to work with others to make good legislation happen.

Well, y'all may need to move your therapy session with Will to a separate topic cause Will doesn't give up.Good points for him to think about have been made, but may need to be defended more.

Lot #5 could benefit the downtown by bringing more foot traffic but I remain doubtful that its amenities will be as hoped. The "public space" and parking spaces do not seem worth the investment the community is making in this project. As a development, if that's what's best, it would seem to have been better for the Town to sell the property and use the proceeds for amenities elsewhere.

The decision has been made. I hope it's successful. I pray for the results of the soil tests because if petro stuff is in that soil our $7.5 million will be a downpayment.

Perhaps those who have a problem with Will should start a new "why Will is hard to work with" thread, but these comments don't seem particularly relevant or helpful here. At least in this particular thread, Will's posts seem on-topic and well-considered.

There are many reasons why the current deal with RAM to develop Lot #5 is unattractive, and, when you add them up, you have to wonder if it's really worth it. I am strongly in favor of increasing density downtown, but this particular deal has some serious problems, as Will and others have pointed out.

why wouldn't there be an enormous amount of underground contamination? When I got to Chapel Hill in 1968, Peanut McFarlands Esso was at the corner of Chruch and W Franklin, and Ross Norwood's Esso right next door further east on W Franklin. They appeared to have been there for decades by then. Norwood was a shady business character, his franchise was revoked by Esso around 1971 (or maybe his lease not renewed) Norwood was the Bunky Morgan type character in Chatham County politics in the early 70s. Was there ever an underground cleanup on the site?? On Church Street near Rosemary was what we called the "hippie house" in the late 60s, I remember it as a commune of sorts. I was there a couple of times. I assume there is extensive underground LSD contamination there. :)

With the town on the cusp of massive construction and infrastructure development, the precedent and priorities that this agreement sets is pivotal. The twists, turns, and surprises that have arisen at every step along the way are astounding- even at the moment of a vote, with the revelation of possible underground contaminates and the financial risk associated with its clean-up.

In the midst of this maze of morass, the Star Trek phrase, “resistance is futile,” keeps coming to mind. It is especially for this reason that I appreciate Will, Laurin, and Jim's persevering with courage and persistence, bringing common sense, as well as social and environmental priorities to the table.

This is WWWAAAYY off the point of RAM, but it is about lot 5 and vicinity. but I remember doing a Daily Tar Heel expose piece on Norwood's ESSO around 1970, he had one of the earliest self-service gas pumps, but this was b4 credit card activation and there was a machine you fed dollar bills into. The story 'round town was that you didn;t actually get any gas, it stole your money, when you complained, you'd just get the stare down from Norwood or one of his thug attendants. I went with five ones, put them in the machine, took out the pump handle, the machine did nothing, no gas, no nothing. I went to the attendant, who came over and verified that I did not get any gas, and brazenly told me that if it did not pump any gas, it meant that I had NOT out any money in. I got out my reporter looking notepad and asked the attendant for his name. He asked me why, I told him "for the name on the warrant". He unlocked the machine, it was JAMMED to the gills with an enormous amount of cash. He asked me how much I lost, I told him $5, he reached in and got out five ones, handed them to me and stormed off after locking the machine. I remember writing either an news story or column about it. Norwood has expanded the station at some point when his lease was cancelled, he got up on the roof and began to saw off the roof at the point of the old building line saying he was removing the expansion. The lessor got a court order to get him off the property. For the longest time you could see the power saw marks on the roof. This was today in Lot 5 history.

That is an awesome story, Gerry! Thanks for sharing it.

Wow. Maybe we can commission Steve Cote or Mike Roig to do a piece of public art commemorating the Great Chainsaw Reclamation at Lot 5. That's a great story.

Oh wait, did I say "public art"? Yikes, don't hurt me!

Just having fun. Missed y'all. Bye now.

Thanks Gerry! That was a cool story. Maybe we need a Share Your CH Story thread?

Gerry, I remember watching the guy do the sawing, and it
was bizarre. I just assumed that there was some sort
of feud between two owners of the station and they
wouldn't/couldn't make up, so one of them decided to literally and physically split the asset. The building had
asphalt shingles, so at least it likely cost him a chainsaw
chain. Thanks for the story.

Why am I reminded of the Flying Burrito?

Sorry, I meant Wicked Burrito

Maybe cause Hunams moved down there from Lot #5?

For those of you concerned about hazardous waste, initial indications are that a problem is brewing below Lot #5.

I'm not surprised. Ross Norwood owned the gas station.

Yes, Council should start preparing to respond.

OrangeChat is reporting that the Lot #5 was a done deal.

It's official. The town has signed off on a deal to redevelop Parking Lot 5, along Church Street, into eight stories of condominiums and shops.

The hazardous waste issue is supposed to cost on the low end:

The town will spend an estimated $232,000 to clean up hazardous waste found underground on the site, more or less what Town Manager Roger Stancil said they expected.

Not quite sure how Roger could know what the cost of remediation would be upfront. I asked the Town to publish the hazardous waste study before moving forward so that our talented citizenry with expertise in these areas could take a brief look.

I'll, of course, will be asking for all the records associated with this decision.

That aside, I recall that the Mayor said that while Roger was given the power to sign on the dotted line, the Council would hear from him, publicly I assumed, before finally committing.

Did they get a hearing on this or is this more of what Bill Thorpe characterizes as a tilt towards a town manager style of governance.

If this is the kind of notice our citizen's get, a note in a 'blog and an article in tomorrow's N&O. then Council has really strayed from their stated policy of openness and transparency.

OK, a quick refresh of the browser for the Town's website reveals this notice. It includes the current report PDF.

That's good, but where is the public discussion on the other elements - like ASHRAE

Final negotiations centered on energy efficiency construction. Recognizing the importance of reducing the energy demand of buildings and dependence on energy from fossil fuels, the Council directed that the agreement require the design and construction of the project to meet a minimum 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency (as measured against standards established by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers - ASHRAE). The project will incorporate sustainable, “green” features that will result in at least 26 points under Leadership in Environment and Energy Design (LEED) standards, the equivalent minimum number of points for basic certification under the LEED system. The Council has established a Town-wide goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 through the Carbon Reduction Program.

Did the sign document include a firm commit?

A quick review of the environmental report reveals a couple interesting bits:

Based on approximate measurements of the property boundary and sample locations, ECS estimates that approximately 8,600 cubic yards (~13,000 tons assuming 1.5 tons per cubic yard) of petroleum-impacted soil may be present at the site. This is a preliminary estimate only; the actual quantity of potentially impacted soils may vary based on conditions observed during soil excavation.

Their emphasis. Also, the geo folks found a mystery 8x10' possible metal vault (maybe we can get Geraldo to open it).

Didn't see a cost estimate linking the 13,000 ton removal to the $232,000 cost. Maybe they'll post that ASAP?

I'm going to assume that Ross Norwood abandoned the vault when his lease was terminated around 1970 and he was kicked off the site. I will offer advance speculation that it is filled with cash. I'm being serious about this. I think I posted earlier about the swindle with his dollar bill machines, and there was a post in another thread on OP from a former employee at Ross Norwood Esso about "questionable ethics".

Will, I'd suggest that the CHPD be brought into this one.

-Gerry

Sounds like they found that vault of money Gerry!
"An environmental assessment the town commissioned has revealed an unknown object, about 8 feet by 10 feet that contains metal. The report described the object as "a potential metal vault" with an unknown origin."

This is such a great story. If they find the money you will definitely read about it here on OP!

If making this a big PR event ala Geraldo's Capone vault caper would help defray the cost of the Lot #5 boondoggle then let's do it!

Then again, now that I'm back in Town, maybe I'll trek over there with a shovel during my lunch break to do a little prospecting ;-)

As I was driving back early, early this morning I was toying about sponsoring a small contest of "closest guess" over on citizenwill.org.

Since Gerry is so excited, I think I'll go ahead and do it...keep an eye out for an announcement later today.

OK, here's an opportunity to have a little fun with the mystery vault and provide the only guaranteed socially redeeming return from the Lot #5 project ;-)

I'll contribute two prizes of $150 to the winners choice of local organization or charity based on accuracy and creativity.

More on the contest here.

Katrina Ryan has sweetened the pot with a grand prize meal at La Rez. Thanks Katrina.

More info on the contest here.

In the vault there will, of course, be a body.
Guess who's? (to start the list)

a. Jimmy Hoffa
b. D.B. Cooper
c. Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili

I think the vault is really a time capsule, buried in 1976.

Inside will be: the missing portrait of Rev. James Pleasant Mason; a copy of Give Us a Break (Arrogance); the first pair of Birkenstocks ever sold in Chapel Hill; the first menu from Wildflower Kitchen; and the secret recipe for Limeade from Colonial Drugs.

Good list, Terri. Perhaps we'll also find the long-lost text of Howard Lee's promise to the Rogers Road neighborhood.

Speaking of which, check out Taylor Sisk's in depth article on Reverent Campbell in this week's Carrboro Citizen.

D. B. Cooper the person or the band?

To be fair to everyone, if you want to win one or both of the $150 donations to local orgs/charities and a dinner for two at La Rez you need to post a response here.

Dan says: "Good list, Terri. Perhaps we'll also find the long-lost text of Howard Lee's promise to the Rogers Road neighborhood."

I talked to Howard about this a few weeks ago, he told me that Bob Holliday (then with WCHL, now a sportscaster with WRAL) taped Howard talking to the Rogers Road neighborhood, and gave Howard the tape. I was not whether it was an audio or video tape, I suspect the former. Howard said he had the tape for a long time, and may still have it.

Does anyone know what the additional $64K (on top of the $300K for environmental remediation) is for?

Mar. 28th budget doc. [PDF]

Downtown Initiative $364,000
Environmental remediation - $300,000
Other - $64,000

Another month goes by and another "estimate" grows by $100,000.

From May 7th's agenda, it appears that we're on the hook not for an additional $364,000 but $460,000!

We estimate the following budget is needed to continue carrying out the implementation of the Lot 5 project in accordance with the Town's responsibilities under the Development Agreement through June 30, 2008:

Environmental Remediation: $240,000
Construction Management Services: $150,000
Professional Services: $65,000
Peer Review Honorarium: $5,000

TOTAL: $460,000

That's about 1/2 million bucks from this year's budget! Kind of undercuts the continued specious argument that the public is not out a dime until the parking garage is finished.

We shouldn't be surprised but I assume many will as the costs spiral quickly upward. It isn't like Council has been very forthcoming with the fiscal analysis of this project.

Mayor Pro Tem Strom tabled my petition for an explanation and breakdown of these costs, so I guess we'll never know why they continue to jump so dramatically - that is unless someone asks once again ;-)

Actually, since last Fall's Lot #5 fiscal surprise I've made a number of requests involving either the sums spent to-date, anticipated expenditures and an explanation of staff's method for estimating costs.

None of those requests have made it past Council. I'll probably do at least one more run at it this year.

First, where do we currently stand?

1) How much, to-date, have we directly spent - on lawyers, consultants, materials, etc. - on the Downtown Development Initiative?
2) How much staff time has been spent on the DDI?
3) What's the current value of Lot #5 (I've been told $6.6 to $14M)?

Second, what analysis went into our current obligations:

1) The impact of the $7.45M COPs financing early to debt service costs for other obligations (Aquatics Center bonds, general borrowings, etc.)
2) Estimated construction management costs.
3) Estimated economic impact beyond revenue loss because of Lot #5's closure?
4) Estimated costs of additional Town services to support the construction of Lot #5.

So, we haven't cleared one tree (hooray!) from Lot #5 and the public investment is up %20 in month for next year, nearing $20M in total.

$1-2M in prior consultancy expenditures + staff time
$460K for remediation, etc.
$7.45M for 161 parking spaces and "eyes on the street"
$6.5-14M Lot #5 land value

Throw in the undervaluation of air rights, future consultancy expenditures, staff time, etc. and this baby is headed toward $20M in taxpayer support for million dollar condos.

If the current Council feels that the return on the publics $15-25M is worth it then they should be able to sell this project at that price point.

Council, be honest. Tell our taxpaying folks they're on the hook directly for $8-10 million. Tell them they're trading $8-16 million in property (land & air). Tell them the incidental cost of upgrading surrounding infrastructure, providing additional services during and after construction, debt service will add another $100-500K to our yearly obligations.

If this is such a great project, the public should have no problem supporting it at its real price. If you can't make the case USING REAL NUMBERS, you should pull the plug.

I'm with Will in terms of Lot 5 skepticism. And I'm surprised that the questions he's asking aren't getting a fair hearing.

How about one of our intrepid reporters write this story:

Chapel Hill Citizens Surprised To Find They're On The Hook for $10 Million

I'm surprised, personally. This whole project and the whole process around it is completely baffling to me.

"baffling" is a great descriptor.

the whole parking lot 5 debacle makes me incredibly cranky. from the first financial surprise twist through the umteenth $$ zillionth.

all I can say is hang-on for more $$urprise$, unless we pull the plug now. yes! pull the plug now, please. and tell us like it is.

as was said in one of the star wars films, "these are not the droids you're looking for." this is not the deal that serves the town and its citizenship in the best way possible.

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.