Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=ocrenter]
would be true IF PUSD territory was the way it was back 20 years ago, in 1992.[…]
Harvey, are you just the smartest guy in the world and everyone else are just retarded?[/quote]
Relax dude, I’m basically in agreement with the idea that this bond isn’t prudent, I just think the reaction here is overdone.
I honestly don’t know enough about PUSD and the development potential, I don’t know exactly where the borders are and believed Poway to have some remaining rural sections. But I haven’t studied a city planning map so if you say there’s nothing left to build, then you are probably correct.
As far as how smart I am, I am sometimes smart enough to ask the important questions, and the key question when making any decision is the following:
What are the alternatives and what are the expected outcomes?
So before we can label anything as a terrible choice, it has to put in the context of the alternatives. I don’t know what other choices the city had in this situation but I have noticed that nobody else here has even mentioned a better solution. (From what I can tell from the articles the city had do to something.)
Anyway, I really don’t care that much, as I live in Temecula and our city appears to be managed much better than Poway.
(BTW: My point about making choices amongst the real-world alternatives applies to elections as well. Political discussions here would be far more productive if more people realized that.)[/quote]
First of all, harvey and sdduuuuude, I’m sure you’re aware that it is the PUSD (and not the city) which is in fiscal hot water over this foolishness.
The few remaining rural lots are likely 1-4 AC apiece. Some are situated within HOAs and most have no utilities whatsoever brought to them.
Only deep-pocketed buyers who really wanted to live east of Poway would attempt to buy and build on these lots. The amount of taxes these few lots (1-3 doz?) could generate in the future pales in comparison to the taxes the PUSD collects from all the newer tracts within the it.
I don’t see the taxes collected by the PUSD growing more than the 2% per year, pursuant to Prop 13. And as far as double-digit appreciation coming back to the area served by PUSD in the next 20 years … I don’t see that, either.
In any case, I don’t see PUSD ever being able to make principle payments on this loan without laying off most of their teachers and shuttering schools. OR filing a Chapter 9 BK to get a court order to modify and recast this ridiculous “capital appreciation” loan they voted in.
There are also other ramifications to its students if it chooses to file for BK protection.
ParticipantIt appears here that the District and their lobbyists were pandering to the voters who reside within PUSD to get this obscure deal passed. I could understand the need to build new schools in the newer areas and that is what the MR is for.
But if you don’t have the money to remodel old schools and the taxpayers don’t want to pay to have them remodeled, you can’t. Parents living in the older areas of PUSD don’t pay MR so they shouldn’t expect to have top-notch, state-of-the-art schools for their kids. To be frank, highly experienced teachers are worth far more to students than the buildings they are learning in.
I don’t believe a very high percentage of property owners residing in PUSD are still protected by Prop 13 and thus have artificially low property taxes. I believe they are likely in the low single digits. I was in Poway for a wedding in the 1970’s and not only was there no civilization whatsoever for over 8 miles between the (newly-constructed) I-15 and Poway, the town itself was very small. PQ and RB were in the PUSD District at the time and were situated close to I-15 with one exit to each community with the later addition of Carmel Mtn Rd. I can’t imagine more than 1-2 developments in each (92128 and 92129) which predated April 1978. Except for RB, Poway and PQ aren’t really “retirement havens” and thus the vast majority of those owners buying in the 1970’s are very likely long gone.
I would guess the entire PUSD had +/- 8K students back then.
So, in sum, the PUSD and other fast-growing school districts in CA’s outer suburbs have to operate within their means.
Our children and grandchildren will NOT buy into these subdivisions if the taxes are raised to begin making payments on these bonds as the tax rate could very well exceed 3% of assessed value for the District to collect enough money to begin even a slow amortization of this MONSTROUS loan.
And why should they? These *new* and *remodeled* schools the Districts are borrowing for today will be worn out by the time our grandchildren and great-grandchildren attend them!
My take on this is that the District was pandering to parents’ extremely high expectations during the 2008 election season. They didn’t want to put a taxpayer cost on it because newer tracts in the PUSD have among the highest MR in the state, thus an additional $60-$100 per $100K of assessed value was unpalatable and the district couldn’t legally just charge property owners in the older sections for the bonds. Knowing as many native San Diegans as I do, I can safely say that an inland outer-suburb (such as Poway) is not exactly a “destination place” for a SD native. For this reason, I believe the PUSD has far more transplants and relocatees than the older, larger local districts, only because it was so small 35+ years ago and grew by 400-500% since then. Many (most?) of these families moved into the PUSD from the “flyover states” which all have weather-related issues. Thus their schools are all indoor (with no rusty lockers, drinking fountains and lunch tables), multi-story with auditoriums and indoor cafeterias, mostly brick and many have state-of-the-art modern classrooms for which 6-8 can be opened up into one big classroom for seminars. Many also have indoor pools and professional playing fields and track areas, etc. These families move to CA wanting the same thing and see some or most of it in a district such as PUSD so gravitate there but that’s not representative of 95% of CA’s school districts.
Due to ignorance, these thousands of transplant-homeowners in the PUSD fail to consider that they may have been paying property taxes equal to 1.7% – 2.7% of assessed value of their properties situated in the locale they left behind. And, to my knowledge, no other state but CA has a “Prop 13-like” measure on its books. Assessors in other states can reassess at whim if there has been a housing boom. And they often DO. These reassessments often greatly exceed the 2% of assessed value pursuant to CA’s Prop 13.
So these out-of-state school districts have a lot more income at their disposal to build/rehab schools than most CA districts do (those w/o MR infusion).
From the well-established Mendocino Co to Marin Co to SF thru the Silicon Valley, Monterey and Santa Barbara Co, down to the affluent communities of West LA and the OC, 95% of the public schools in coastal CA are older “outdoor campuses” (but perhaps-remodeled at some point). They all seem to be “good enough” for families who reside in communities where the RE is 2-12 times the value of the avg SFR in the PUSD. Why should it be different for the residents of newer inland subdivisions who are not paying MR?
In a nutshell, transplants to CA newer inland subdivisions have too high of expectations for their children’s physical school facilities. In the absence of those residents voting themselves to be charged annually (on their tax bills) for construction bonds, the “expectations” of these parents cannot and should not be fulfilled.
PUSD should have never, ever have taken out a capital improvement loan of this magnitude and with these terms. By their incompetent foolishness, they screwed themselves, and, down the road, their taxpayers.
Now that this news has reached the national level, I predict that a lot of homeowners will list their properties ASAP before the PUSD is strongly advised to begin making principle payments on their subprime “capital appreciation” loan and thus, asks the assessor to raise property taxes to do it. Much higher tax rates could easily reduce the property values within the PUSD.
Has anyone looked at the “Prop C” fine print? Does anyone know if it allows the District to begin taxing if they get into a pinch on his loan or feel they won’t be able to pay it?
There’s no free lunch, folks … ESP in CA.
[end of lecture]
August 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749657Participant[quote=Jazzman]BG, do you think if the tax credits, low interest rates, foreclosure moratoriums, HAMP and other govt. efforts, and the continual prop marketing/lobbying of the RE industry were absent, prices would be where they are now? If you look at S&P’s Case Shiller index over a twenty year period, it’s hard to see how today’s prices are justified in terms of increased incomes. For as long as debt is the cause of price inflation, then it seems doubtful home price appreciation is creating wealth. If a martian was watching, it/he/she would be saying their (humans) problem was debt related, and they are trying to solve it with more debt. I wouldn’t blame them for invading us.[/quote]
If none of the RE propping-up mechanisms were ever employed by the gov’t, I believe 80% of the local market would have certainly crashed 50%+ in early 2008 and all the cash-rich flippers and speculators looking for rentals would have bought trustees deeds and REO’s in full force and leased or resold them all a few months later.
If all the these artificial props were taken away today, there would be no doubt be *countless* former and soon-to-be former long-term squatting homedebtors looking for rentals with a tarnished credit record under their belts. Those for whom chronic unemployment was the primary cause of their default would leave the area for cheaper rental pastures elsewhere. Again, the flipping teams and investor speculators would come out of the woodwork with cash to gobble up the tattered remains of the homedebtors.
Yes, I think many areas could tank, even a lot, but this sold-price-tanking would be temporary …. lasting only until 6 months after the last area homedebtor was evicted from their now-foreclosed upon property.
SD County is not only flush with foreign buyers looking for unique properties and great investment deals, it is flush with dozens of very well-organized REITs, flipping teams and investors of all types (mostly boomers over age 59.5 who have access to a lot of cash and are looking for income). You might be *shocked* as to how handy some of these individual investors are.
The blood in the streets caused from taking away the props (abruptly ending “lender-malaise”) will blow over within 6-12 months, depending on micro area. Then prices will firm up causing more “fence-sitting” sellers to list the better-maintained properties for sale. The eventual sale of these better-maintained properties will enhance the sold comps of their micro area, lifting all surrounding boats. This will happen faster in the “coveted” and “hip” areas and also areas very convenient to public transportation (with no transfers) quickly taking passengers to work centers and major shopping and entertainment.
If CA lenders are no longer paid by the PTB to sit on their hands taking 2+ yrs to work out a mod deal with their squatters, then they will follow the non-judicial foreclosure scheme (of 111/141 days) laid out for them by the CA Legislature one day after they receive word that their props are gone. Soon, the 141-day provision in the code will disappear (and/or the reason for it will) and CA lenders will be back to square one (with a 111-day foreclosure timetable + 3 biz days for a filed trustees deed).
As it should be and should have always been. I don’t mind a bit if this happens. If it happens too close to the time I want to “retire” and move away, I’ll just rent my property until a better day. There will always be a “better day” in SD Co. This is partly due to Prop 13 and partly due to its very interesting and unparalleled locale. And this is coming from a self-professed (realistic) “bear.”
In addition, a very LARGE portion of SD Co’s population is self-employed, retired or otherwise independently wealthy and does NOT depend on jobs to support themselves.
Higher mortgage interest rates would only affect those areas where the majority of buyers customarily take out large mortgages (>417K). In these areas, sold prices would likely be affected by the prevailing interest rate but I think the rate would have to be over 7.5% to affect sold prices. In any case, it would only affect the marginal buyers who probably should not have been shopping in those areas to begin with.
I believe in Darwinism, paying your dues and living within your means and that a particular piece of RE is worth exactly what someone will pay for it . . . nothing more, nothing less. The best CA coastal areas were never created to house the masses of wanna-be buyers to begin with, ESP the working-stiff FTB. They will always be available to those that can afford to live there.
Participant[quote=carli]Hey, BG, if you’re implying that SDUSD is too savvy to ever be duped by one of these bond debacles, think again – http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_3f780860-e0b7-11e1-821b-001a4bcf887a.html
[/quote]
Lol … thanks for the link, carli! Well, at least we know they haven’t yet spent any of their ill-gotten “funny money” on a new HQ (like “top-down” PUSD did).SDUSD’s only saving grace is that they likely have 4x the taxpayers to foot their “future interest due” of $1.05B which is only 16.5% higher than PUSDs “future interest due” of $877M. This is taking into account that parts of SR and all of PQ and RB are part of the City of SD and are not within SDUSD but are within the PUSD.
IMHO, this is really crazy-making by these four SD Co school districts. They’re mortgaging themselves (and, as a byproduct, their taxpayers) into oblivion.
Sorry to hear about those school bonds on your ballots, carli. You better hope you don’t have at least 30% registered renter-voters, ESP those renters who live there specifically for their kids to attend those schools.
A large contingent of voting renters is enough to get these bonds passed and they don’t care … ESP if they signed a long-term lease. Renters don’t (directly) pay property taxes.
ParticipantThe infamous “Eugene Brucker Education Center,” with its nearly four square blocks of the local landmark SDUSD HQ and its hodgepodge of trailers and modular add-ons, houses the administration, transportation, counseling, legal and maintenance staff for SDUSD, a district over four times the size of PUSD.
Built in the early ’50’s, its roof and some of its windows are now sagging.
[img_assist|nid=16544|title=4100 Normal St SD|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=46]
But hey … it’s good enough for SDUSD and the property owners who live within it will not be gouged unmercifully by a catastrophically stupid business blunder made by the district and their hired “lobbyists.”
Participant. . . Right now, the district receives about $11 million a year from homeowners towards paying off its bonds.
So, to be able to afford its debt payments 20 years from now, the total assessed value of property within the taxed area would have to quadruple.
That’s possible. In the last 10 years, the total value of property in the school district almost doubled. But if the last decade has shown municipal governments anything, it’s that relying on consistent growth in tax revenues is a risky business.
If the district’s projections don’t come true, homeowners will see their taxes spike to make up the difference.
And there’s no chance of the district refinancing the deal. The loan contains a provision strictly barring the district from refinancing its debt.
The district told taxpayers back in 2008 that it probably wouldn’t have to raise taxes to meet its payments. But it’s fully within its legal rights to do so.
McAllister, whose office is tasked with making sure local school districts pay their bond debts, said his office could be compelled to raise property tax rates to ensure the district can make its payments on the bond.
Of course, many of the residents who voted on Proposition C will be long gone by then. They’ll be dead, or living somewhere else.
But whoever’s left living in the taxed area will have to pick up the tab for the money the district borrowed last year, and for the $877 million in interest the district will have accumulated by then.
(emphasis added)
The $11M bond money currently rec’d by the district from the assessor pays off the bonds they issued in 2002, which were collected from property owners at the rate of $55 per $100K of assessed value. Six years later, in 2008, local taxes should have been raised in order to service the new voted-in Prop C bond debt. But they weren’t.
This HUGE DEBT OVERHANG doesn’t bode well for the future property values within the PUSD. I realize that many areas of the PUSD, property owners are paying MR, as well, the bulk of which likely goes to the PUSD. But this is not an argument for the bond’s proponents to “promise” no new taxes in 2008 to slide Prop C past its voters.
Consider and compare the SUHSD in SD Co’s south bay to the PUSD. Half the residential properties within the district have MR encumbrances of which a big chunk of that goes to SUHSD. Yet, voters in the SUHSD passed prop BB in 2000 and Prop O in 2006 (6 years apart) to be used to help build new schools and refurb old schools. Each owner’s current Prop O portion of their tax is calculated at the rate of about $60.79 per $100K of assessed value. Yet, the SUHSD has a hodgepodge of permanently-skirted trailers with modular add-ons for its HQ, all likely 50-60 years old.
I’m troubled by the PUSD’s all-brick facade multi-level HQ with its (very expensive) dbl-paned “Low E” windows.
[img_assist|nid=16542|title=PUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=66]
Why did they think they needed to build this “monument” and not tax its property owners to pay for it? I thought there was a “captive audience” of current and aspiring homeowners in the PUSD. Why wouldn’t they approve a new construction bond to build this monstrosity and upgrade its older schools … even if the bonds from 2000 were not yet paid off?
The SDUSD HQ with its 40-60 year-old trailers and add-ons was originally constructed in the ’30’s!
The GUSD HQ was actually built in the ’20’s, yet their taxpayers are currently funding Prop U (which they’re doing great things with, btw)!
[img_assist|nid=16543|title=GUSD HQ|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=100]
Why are PUSD residents so special that they couldn’t or wouldn’t vote for a bond measure in 2008? The truth is, they might have, or may have voted for a more scaled-down version, but they were duped into voting in this “exotic bond scheme” that will end up blowing up on them in the form of (now exorbitant) property tax hikes to make up the payments for missed principal and interest.
Otherwise the bond debt will end up bankrupting the district.
August 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749616Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]I, for one, am quite jealous of those bottom 40% lucky ducks that don’t pay any federal income taxes. I mean, for one thing, they get to live on less than $35K a year, and you can buy a lot of ramen for that! Just because a lot of them are elderly, disabled and full time students doesn’t mean they shouldn’t pay their fair share, amirite? Let’s not let old people or college kids who don’t pay federal income taxes vote.
While 35K a year is a lot of money, you’re right that it’s hard to support a family on 200k a year! Having to choose between having a maid, sending the kids to dance lessons and having a math tutor is not fair! And god forbid you have to send your snowflake to *public* school.
Sure, the bottom 46% pay less proportionally in payroll taxes than those who cap out. They also pay a much greater percentage of their income in sales taxes, but who cares, right? Same percentage, must be fair. If they were smart they would invest some of that fat cash they are raking in and benefit from low tax rates on capital gains and dividends. It’s not our fault the poor waste all their money on their rent, food and health care. They need to learn to not eat and save.Seriously though, this is America, we have a progressive tax policy. Greatest nation in the world. If you don’t like it, you can get out.[/quote]
Great post, poorgradstudent! Except for one caveat. When I was in my “FICA contribution years,” I had this continual vision where I (and my bretheren) were supporting the weekly salon visits of all these little old ladies who never worked (outside of the home) a day in their lives :={.
Their (inflated) SS benefits (due to collecting on a spouse or fmr spouse’s work record) allowed them this pleasure and also to take the bus to an Indian casino or factory outlet to play with their friends 1-2x per month.
It didn’t seem fair that I couldn’t afford any salon, casino OR factory outlet visits and moreover, did not have the leave from work available to do so.
Such is life … the unfairness of it all … I guess we can all find a reason to complain that we were born in the wrong era :=0
August 7, 2012 at 11:48 AM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749615Participant[quote=flu]. . .
1. How about government spending less defense
2. How about government spending less social entitlement benefits programs.
3. How about government start actually make some of the corporations that pay no taxes at all pay taxes, like somewhat reforming the expatriation corporate tax rules. . . .[/quote]All good ideas. Yes, how about it?
Participantzk, are you in SD County?
August 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749613Participantmatt, how many sf does your “smallish house” have? And how big is your lot?
And if you didn’t have “5 kids” or “baby mommas” in the future, would YOU stay put because you like your house and neighborhood?
Just wondering. Your answers may reveal you should just enjoy your 3.5% fixed rate mtg and don’t really need to be worrying about this.
As far as current borrowers with low mtg rates having a “disincentive” to “move-up” in the future, I don’t see it this way.
The way I see it, the buyer under these favorable rates bought the smaller house for a reason and, contrary to popular opinion, it probably wasn’t the price. It was because they wanted to be in a certain coveted or “hip” area and did not want to live in the stix or in a lower-income area such as Lemon Grove or Spring Valley, where they could have gotten a 5/2.5 with large garage/lot for the same or less amount of money. So the buyers buying “move-up” properties now are not necessarily “move-up” buyers. Due to the low interest rates, likely half are actually FTB’s stretching to buy a property which, under a more normal 6.5% to 7.5% fixed mtg market, would be out of their league. Many are doing so without full knowledge of the monthly cost of maintenance and utilities on such a property.
There are buyers who buy for location and/or charm/architectural details and then there are buyers who buy for purely size and/or “uniform look of a planned community.” However, these buyers are not typically one and the same person.
I have bought and sold several properties in my lifetime and never once did I pay any attention whatsoever to the prevailing mtg interest rates … not even when FHA was at 15.5%. We qualified for whatever we did and that was our shopping point. There are more than nine ways to skin a cat.
In other words, ALL interest-rate environments, and ESPECIALLY high interest-rate environments are GREAT for buying property!
August 7, 2012 at 11:06 AM in reply to: Future housing purchase – trading up when rates are higher? #749611Participant[quote=Jazzman]^^^Not sure I follow the logic of this. FTBs are already buying the best they can afford.. The definition of trading up is buying a better, more expensive home when you are in a better position to do so. How can you bring forward the future? A low interest rate environment doesn’t mean buyers are able to save, it just means affordability is enhanced with over-inflated prices.[/quote]
Jazzman, I don’t think current prices in SD County are overinflated. In fact, in many areas, the current asking prices are less than today’s build-cost with the lot thrown in for free and certainly selling for less than current salary and interest-rate fundamentals would dictate.
However, I do agree with you and CW about recent buyers’ (who purchased at low prices and with low-interest mtgs) inability to save. I think this stems from the feeling that the property they just bought “needs everything now” and “has to be remodeled ASAP.” In addition, I believe the vast majority of the current crop of homebuying families won’t buy anything used to place inside that home. All furnishings, appliances, electronics and window and floor coverings must be new and unused, preferably in the exact model, color and style that they want. This includes the preference for new and near-new vehicles.
It’s more than a little difficult for a family to put $$ in savings every month when their consumer debt service is as high as it is and/or they spend all of their income (no matter what their income level) on consumer debt service (incl student loans) and enhancing their lifestyles (ie very expensive daycare and pre-K, private schools, HOA’s, etc). They just “grow” into the their available discretionary income, which is higher, due to low mtg rates.
There are LOTS of cheaper options for consumer goods and “lifestyle choices” which would enable young families to save money but they are unpalatable to the vast majority of homeowners who are currently in “family-raising mode.”
Yes, Jazzman, most FTB’s are already buying the best they can afford and often much more than they can afford, given all the well-known uncertainties that can befall people in this “station in life.”
Participant[quote=flu]What do you guys think about a third option?
Dr. Ron Paul
Ron Paul for 2012…. no wait 2016…2020?….Maybe 2024?
!!!!!!Maybe Romney can pick Ron Paul as VP… Yeah, yeah…I can see it now….[/quote]
As to RP running again, I wouldn’t bet on that. He’s not exactly a spring chicken. I could see RP’s son running in the future, though.
As to Romney picking RP as his running mate … uhh … stranger things have happened. If he gets too far behind Obama in the polls in the coming weeks, he could very well consider it as this is a sure ticket to picking up the votes which would have gone to RP :=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] . . . Also interesting will be the reaction of the younger generation, which is seeing a massive wealth transfer from their pockets to the boomers/elderly. There’s a backlash in there somewhere…[/quote]
Allan, I don’t know if you’re a boomer, but you must be aware of the “massive wealth transfer” (incl a cost-of-living raise almost every year) that the boomers and Gen X transferred to the “Greatest Gen” and the “WWII Gen” from 1964 forward. What is different about the current “wealth transfer” in the form of OASDI and Medicare to boomers, the WWII gen (shrinking) and the surviving Greatest Gen (shrinking fast) is that the vast majority of the current crop of boomers (male AND female) who are retired, retiring or soon to retire PAID their required 40 quarters (and often MUCH more than that) of FICA into the “system.”
50% of the older generations were women who either never worked or worked sporadically and/or part-time and did not contribute any FICA or less than $5K of FICA in their lifetimes on their own behalves. However, these past and current OASDI recipients were and are allowed to collect OASDI from age 65 until they die based upon calculations from their current spouse’s, a deceased spouse’s or former spouse’s work records EVEN if that current or former spouse is currently collecting OASDI themselves based upon their own work record!
Then there is the exorbitant SS (abt $850 – $2400) paid to each minor survivor, even if their parent died young and contributed little or no FICA in their lifetimes!
Then there is the SSI paid to many thousands of immigrants over the age of 65 who contributed zero FICA in their lifetimes and actually immigrated to the US AFTER they “retired” in their home country
In addition, the current crop of eligible retirees over the age of 65 now all pay a Medicare Supplement premium for Medicare Part B and D and a very large portion of the Greatest Gen did not.
The “reform” that actually needs to happen is SS reform in ALL its programs. Otherwise many of us boomers will likely not be able to even recover our own lifetime contributions to the “system” after turning 66+ years old and becoming eligible. And forget their being any OASDI for Gen X and beyond …
SK will probably argue this 🙂 but I predict I may be able to collect OASDI for less than 3 years before the fund becomes insolvent, that is, if it is not insolvent before I become eligible.
I have little sympathy for the current crop of younger workers. They have so many more freedoms “on the clock” than the boomers and generations beyond ever dreamed of and also enjoy a whole passel of more recent “employee-friendly” laws that their forebears did not.
Every worker coming up thru the ranks has always had the same problems. The current crop of workers just seems to want to whine about them more.
Participant[quote=spdrun] … I’ve made more than a few ski trips in a Miata. Hardtop, snow tires, ski rack slung off the trunk, and I was actually PASSING idiots in SUVs.[/quote]
Lol, spdrun … back in the day, I made a few ski trips in a 280Z with the same kind of roof rack and it handled VERY well in the snow with just snow tires! However, we never had to put chains on.
When the chain law is in effect, I have to put on my cables. This has happened to me many times in the sierras. One time, I had to put them on and take them off 3x before I got all the way thru the sierras (US 50). This is time consuming and not that easy to do properly in a storm and/or in the dark on a car that doesn’t have very much clearance between the tires and wheel wells.
I’m tired of this routine and want to get away from this requirement.
-
AuthorPosts
