Are suburbs bad for the environment?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sdsguitar310. Show sdsguitar310's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    Suburbs are indeed to blame for many of the problems we face. If we start seeing more and more people moving out of the suburbs and into the city, the state and federal government needs to step up and reverse some of the suburbanization of the past 50 years by buying developed and undeveloped suburban land as people move out, and turning it into preservation land. A sort of "reverse development" you could call it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tangent. Show tangent's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    A look at the suburban slum rioting in France shows the clear downside of the elite urban core model that our current crop of urban planners are inclined to following.   A good settlement pattern will allow a variety of living choices to meet different needs. Urban, suburban and rural should remain distinct and available options regardless of your social status and wealth. 

    Current Massachusetts laws, specifically Chapter 40B, are forever changing the nature of Boston's suburbs by filling the last remaining undeveloped lands with tenament blocks, initiating a change of the suburbs into slums when those stick built tenament apartments decay in 30 years.  And the mega corps that built them will just sell and move on after they have gotten enough return on their investment.

    The pro-urban environmental arguments are dubious at best and assume that urban dwellers are productive members of society, rather than the omni consumers at the top of the societal food chain that they are.   Modern mega cities would die if it weren't for a global supply chain that brings resources from all over the world.   The environmental foot print for a person living in Boston or New York, a person that produces no food and no tangible goods , extends to all those people in the Midwest,  California, China, Mexico, Venezuela that actually produce the goods we need to survive.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from swimmerkennedy. Show swimmerkennedy's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    Yeah... Count me in. I'm packing up, selling my Suburban and 4 BR home in the burbs for a skateboard and a shack in Roxbury.

    Not.

    You eco-nazis are delusional. DRILL. DRILL. DRILL. 

    Global Warming is a Trojan Horse for Global Socialism.    
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Nasochkas. Show Nasochkas's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449846

    Here is an interesting article on American suburbs  and  recent trends  in suburbinization.


    As for environmental impacts: I would say it depends.  The damage done from burning fuel on a long commute is only one type of environmental costs. Other costs to consider are the design of suburbun v. urban building  for energy use.  Watering lawns  also has an environmental impact.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fredmanigat. Show fredmanigat's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    urban living is here to stay

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepboyle. Show joepboyle's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    The issue isn't city vs. suburb, so much as one kind of suburb vs. another.
    Streetcar suburbs like Arlington and some of the villages in Newton are suburbs, too.
    Not to mention, most of those suburban drivers are driving to jobs in other suburbs.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyreader. Show kyreader's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    The issue isn't so much about suburbs, per se.  The problem is the creation of outlying locations with no real town center or urban planning around it.  Simply allowing building of one random cul-de-sac of houses distinct from another pushing all on to one common road ("collector road") is the mess we need to deal with. Better planning would allow for those to get around these outlying towns without needing to drive. Creating links (by train, for example) between nodes of self-sufficient urban and town centers will help alleviate the problem without the need for everyone to move back into established cities like Boston. 

    The major obstacle will be to stop the federal government from putting so much tax money into roads that will become vacant once oil becomes too scarce and expensive.  The troubling aspect is that our current tax system punishes those who give up cars by forcing them to subsidize others' driving.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepboyle. Show joepboyle's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    The elitists in this debate are those who support snob zoning laws.
    Do you think developers in the suburbs put 4 houses on 7 acres instead of 25 because they don't like money?  Do you think they devote 3/4 of the area of their commercial property to surface parking because they just don't want to build more retail space?
    They have to pass laws, backed by fines and permit denials, to stop the market from building the suburbs in a traditional or New Urbanist manner.  Put in a rail stop, they'll knock over their grannies to put a condo tower next to it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_1598501. Show user_1598501's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?


    Yet more cheering at the creation of suburbs without any thoughts
    given as to why people with families are fleeing the cities.

    If you want people to stay in the cities you've got to have
    more family friendly housing (3+ bedroom), better schools,
    and more parking. Keep regulations geared towards building one and two bedroom condos (or none at all) and allowing the schools to fail while cheering as the less affluent folks who can't afford private schools and Cantabridgian mansions/Brookline housing get screwed yet again.

    I'm also quite sure that many/most of the people doing the cheering have "staff" who handle their day to day chores. Perhaps when they can't afford to mow your lawn or clean your house you'll figure out that your cheering was misplaced.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tangent. Show tangent's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]
    The major obstacle will be to stop the federal government from putting so much tax money into roads that will become vacant once oil becomes too scarce and expensive.  The troubling aspect is that our current tax system punishes those who give up cars by forcing them to subsidize others' driving.[/Quote]

    That is factually incorrect.  37% of the Federal gas tax for car drivers subsidizes uneconomic mass transit and other non car related projects, not the other way around.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tangent. Show tangent's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]The elitists in this debate are those who support snob zoning laws.[/Quote]

    The so called "anti-snob" Capter 40B has been mostly applied to working class suburbs and not rich towns.  And it has been used to build large scale hundred unit developments on forested lands because it is cheaper to clear trees and sell the lumber than to demolish existing structures to build more densly and revitalize the suburb's city centers.  Besides a few good examples like Station Landing in Medford built around the T and incorporating restaurants and shopping, these large scale 40B developments create "luxury" apartments with a small percentage set aside for affordability.  And they are often built at the edges of cities and towns because that is where the last remaining unbuilt land is.  The "anti-snob" Chapter 40B is creating just the opposite of what is supposedly the goal of "Smart Growth".

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from danielbuckley. Show danielbuckley's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Yeah... Count me in. I'm packing up, selling my Suburban and 4 BR home in the burbs for a skateboard and a shack in Roxbury.

    Not.

    You eco-nazis are delusional. DRILL. DRILL. DRILL. 

    Global Warming is a Trojan Horse for Global Socialism.    [/Quote]

    let's hope this is a joke.  even IF global warming is some sort of trjoan horse, the basic law of finite resources (ie, peak oil) dictates that we start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels now.  what is needed in place of the traditional american suburb is one centered on public transit.  the edge cities of cambridge, newton, arlington -- even dedham -- are perfect examples of how to think about future development. 

    drill drill drill indeed......go open a book, swimmerkennedy.  you sound foolish.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ne4me. Show ne4me's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]A look at the suburban slum rioting in France shows the clear downside of the elite urban core model that our current crop of urban planners are inclined to following.[/Quote]

       The situation outside of Paris is entirely different, and brought on by the need to build housing for large numbers of new, unassimilated immigrants. If anything, it shows the dangers of a broken immigration policy, not the urban core model.

    [Quote]A good settlement pattern will allow a variety of living choices to meet different needs. Urban, suburban and rural should remain distinct and available options regardless of your social status and wealth.[/Quote]

    I agree. However, you don't seem to realize that 40B is designed to create exactly this: A variety of living options for people of different socioeconomic standing.
         

    [Quote]Current Massachusetts laws, specifically Chapter 40B, are forever changing the nature of Boston's suburbs by filling the last remaining undeveloped lands with tenament blocks, initiating a change of the suburbs into slums when those stick built tenament apartments decay in 30 years.  And the mega corps that built them will just sell and move on after they have gotten enough return on their investment.[/Quote]

    Some of the "tenement blocks" you mention are no more or less stick-built than the McMansions. Many will age similarly poorly. And likewise, the mega-developers who built them will just move on.

    [Quote]The pro-urban environmental arguments are dubious at best and assume that urban dwellers are productive members of society, rather than the omni consumers at the top of the societal food chain that they are.   Modern mega cities would die if it weren't for a global supply chain that brings resources from all over the world.   The environmental foot print for a person living in Boston or New York, a person that produces no food and no tangible goods , extends to all those people in the Midwest,  California, China, Mexico, Venezuela that actually produce the goods we need to survive.[/Quote]

    Again, you miss the point. After all, the suburbanites use all those products from China, etc. But they also buy bigger TVs, have larger lawns, and drive to get everywhere. Farm life does have advantages, but the bottom line is: urbanites use far less resources than their suburban counterparts. After moving from the suburbs to the city, my energy usage has dropped by more than half.

    So don't kid yourself (or others) about the societal benefits of urban vs. suburban living.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from laryan. Show laryan's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    i think its a "different strokes for different folks" situation. 

    there are many things to consider.  If you have kids, you want them to be safe, yet street smart.  Where I experienced busing in boston firsthand, we wouldn't send them to any elementary, middle or high school within boston limits, including both latin school & latin academy.  that is a choice that my husband & i made.  

    on the other hand, we want them to have access to the quality medical care, higher education, and the assortment of world class cultural events and museums boston has to offer.  

    just my 2 cents!

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seltzerlover. Show seltzerlover's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    As an urban resident (Jamaica Plain) with a wife and young child, I feel blessed to live not only near public transportation that can take me to from work easily, but near bike paths that allow me to commute to work while keeping my carbon footprint small and my body in shape. I feel sorry for those of you in the suburbs who are now stuck with long drives on either side of your day.  I believe you've traded the hope of a better life for your kids for a worse one for yourselves, especially now that you're paying so much at the pump, not to mention spending so much of your lives behind the wheel. Now that the demographics may have to shift back to living closer to where we work, we had better hope our city leadership is ready, b/c we're going to need to find places for all of you suburbanites to live, as well as better transit options to get us all around. That's not even touching on the thorny issue of where all of our kids are going to school. Let's hope our politicians are up to the task.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tangent. Show tangent's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]I agree. However, you don't seem to realize that 40B is designed tocreate exactly this: A variety of living options for people ofdifferent socioeconomic standing.[/Quote]

    Designed to, yes.  Succeeds at, no.  40B developments are consuming the very greenspaces and aesthetics that make the suburbs peaceful and desireable places to live.  You take away the "snob zoning" (which really means you take away all zoning when it is a 40B development) and you merely replace urban blight with suburban blight.  Chapter 40B is really designed to make a few people rich at the expense of good urban planning.


    [Quote]Some of the "tenement blocks" you mention are no more or lessstick-built than the McMansions. Many will age similarly poorly. Andlikewise, the mega-developers who built them will just move on.[/Quote]

    But McMansions are bought by people that can afford to repair the buildings. And mentioning McMansions is just a red herring, they are no more worse than any beacon hill or back bay abode with the extravagances of the rich.

    With multi hundred unit 40B apartment buildings the billion dollar corporation that owns the buildings can divert greater and greater portions of the rental income away from maintenance in order to pad their bottom lines to meet next quarter's stock market expectations.  And then they can just liquidate the place later when the deferred maintenance bills come due.  Look at any apartment complex built 30 or more years ago (built much better than today's apartment complexes) and you will see many buildings that have become condos struggling with rising maintenance costs which translate into higher and higher association fees.

    [Quote]
    Again, you miss the point. After all, the suburbanites use all thoseproducts from China, etc. But they also buy bigger TVs, have largerlawns, and drive to get everywhere. Farm life does have advantages, butthe bottom line is: urbanites use far less resources than theirsuburban counterparts. After moving from the suburbs to the city, myenergy usage has dropped by more than half.

    So don't kid yourself (or others) about the societal benefits of urban vs. suburban living.[/Quote]

    I think the point is that some people want some peace and quiet which you can't affordably get in the city.  There are some energy savings per capita to be made by packing people in more closely and sharing walls.  But those benefits are offset by social costs in higher crime rates and lower quality of life.  The complexities of denser living also make cities very slow to adapt to changes in
    economics. 

    Look at Detroit and you see property that is worth less now than the replacement costs of the structures that are on it.  The land has literally no value or even a negative value.  Look at Boston and entire neighborhoods were destroyed because of urban planning's wrong turns in the 1950s and 1960s. 

    40B is one of those wrong turns.  I agree with its goals, and I agree that local zoning needs to be superceded in some places to meet regional needs.  But laws including zoning should be democratic and 40B just just cedes control to the largest developers with the best lawyers and puts housing production ahead of the legitamite social needs of our communities.

    The only real solution to our environmental and resource problems is through a reasonable population decline.  Problem is that socialist government policies require ever increasing populations to support them and we now see a new baby boom in the US as great as the baby boom of the 1950s.

    The truth is that compared to every other city in the world the City of Boston really extends at least out to rt 128.  The "suburbs" are now really those cities and towns between 128 and 495.  And we need to preserve the transitional rural character of our suburbs and also plan everything inside rt 128 as part of a walkable, bikable, livable urban core.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobBos. Show BobBos's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]IWhile prices in the burbs are plummeting, prices in Boston, with the exception of seedier areas like Roxbury and Dorchester, have seen double digit increases in the past year.[/Quote]

    Roxbury and Dorchester, really?  I'd suggest you check the facts.  I know nothing about Dorchester.  But I do know that Roxbury prices are up even more dramatically in the past decade than the rest of the city.  These days, Roxbury is priced similarly to a wide swath of the suburbs beyond Route 128 --- with the exception that Roxbury home values are holding up better in the current downturn, due to the excellent location and high gas prices.  Do not be surprised if it becomes difficult to affording a place in Roxbury 20 years from now.  It makes sense, when you think about it.

    As for "streetcar suburbs," remember that term applies to pretty much all of Boston, not just the towns like Arlington or Newton that we consider suburbs today.  Roxbury?  suburb.  JP?  suburb.  Dorchester?  suburb.  Rozzie?  West Roxbury?  all suburbs.  But really, who wants to rides streetcars these days?  They're quaint, but slow.  We need to think ahead and build real transit systems (like the Red, Orange and Blue lines).

    If people really want to stop driving and all move to the city, then we will have a serious problem because there are not enough homes (or land) in the city to accomodate such an influx.  Almost certainly, such a sea change will require an expansion of building density, the T and other urban infrastructure into areas that today are considered more suburban.

    In any case, I'm sure that market forces, along with good planning in response to market forces, will work this out in the end.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ne4me. Show ne4me's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]I thought this was a free country? What business is it for anyone to tell someone that living in the suburbs is bad or that living in the city is no good? It is for everyone to decide for themselves where they want  to live and to hell with the environmentalist watermelons that want to tell everyone else how they should live.[/Quote]

    You are missing an important part of the equation. If we use too much energy (or use dirty energy, or increase global warming), we are affecting many people besides ourselves. It is not always clear or obvious. For example, the burning of dirty coal in the midwest causes acid rain in the Northeast. Should this be allowed? Should midwesterners pay for the damages? Likewise, our excessive use of resources may cause people in other parts of the world to starve to death without our knowledge. It seems to me the job of the "environmentalist watermelons" is to look into these issues and help set policy accordingly. So long as people need to be protected from the misbehavior of others, it will never be a completely free country. Nor should it be.

    [Quote]Suburbs, rural communities, interstate highways, the automobile and cheap energy have allowed more people to have a higher standard of living.

    Time to find cheaper and cleaner energy to power mobility, not have the policy wonks keep gas prices high to force people to live the way the social tinkerers think they should live.[/Quote]

    Again, the job of the "policy wonks" and "social tinkerers" is to warn us when we might be heading down the wrong path, and to suggest alternatives. That way, we can adjust before it is painful. It is like thinking about (and saving for) your retirement. The future is never exactly as planned, but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about it, and planning accordingly. If we had listened better to the wonks and tinkerers, we would already have developed those cheaper and cleaner energy alternatives you seek. And remember, more efficient mobility (or less need for it) is about as cheap and clean a solution as one can hope for.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajorDick. Show MajorDick's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    The Amercian 'way of life' as quoted by Darth Cheney will not be compromised. People will continue to drive on the Interstates until they find an exit they can afford to buy a home near. And they will be fleeing the metro areas and leaving those places to them that makes life suck so bad, the poor.

    So now that the poor are being displaced from the metro areas by the folks leaving the sub-burbs and the X-burbs where do you think the poor (a/k/a druggies, drunks, hooahs, theives, scumbuckets and others of that ilk) wind up living? Well they wind up in the X-burds.

    I've see it first hand. When I moved here about four years ago the place was like paradise. So far this year I've had four attempted breakins from the 'new folks'. I cam hoime one night and four COP cars were dragging all kinds of people out in chains from the 'public sqyare'. That night about 2AM they had a bottle throwing fight in the intersection of the public square, glass covered the road. Now there's a crusier parked at the front of the complex when you enter.

    Building the 'burbs' was the single biggest waste of resources ever dreamed up. In order to buy mik you need to drive 10 miles, public transportation is laffable and just about all our arable land has been paved over.

    We exported our manufacutring base to the Chins and replaced it with home building trades. OK folks, whos' bright idea was this? Most of the homes built were built to accomodate the people coming into areas to build the homes. Now they're gone and the houses stand mostly abandoned.

    The airline industry which destroyed the rail in this nation is itself being destroyed, yet there's no rail service. The tracks is still there rusting in the rain but no trains on it. Our rail systems would be an embarrasment to the Bulgarians fer christs sake!

    Just imagine how many jobs would be created if we made the same effort to re-start our rail system and intriduce hi-speed rail where appropriate? ALL the trades and skills that would be needed to build out would soar in demand, employment would skyrocket along with wages and we could once again become a first class nation, which by-the-way we no longer are anymore. We're a nation that responded to 9-11 by telling people to buy duct tape and traskbags and to Hurricana Katrina we didn't even bother to respond.

    Sooner not later the Federal Gov't will fail. he burden of running your locales will fall to the States and the cites/towns/villages. This will be a good thing. No more wars or war mongering idiots in the hite House, Congress will become a figurehead job and the States won't have to cough up money to the Mafia, I mean the Feds.

    It's called self rule, it's why we started this nation originally. I just hope the entire economy just fails so we can divide the nation into regional areas, nationalize certain industries, energy, water, health care insurance, etc. and get back to being a first claas nation. Right now we're starting to resemble Zibabwae.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrbk6q. Show mrbk6q's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Yeah... Count me in. I'm packing up, selling my Suburban and 4 BR home in the burbs for a skateboard and a shack in Roxbury.

    Not.

    You eco-nazis are delusional. DRILL. DRILL. DRILL. 

    Global Warming is a Trojan Horse for Global Socialism.    [/Quote]
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ne4me. Show ne4me's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    Tangent,

    I agree with many comments in your most recent post. No doubt 40B is far from perfect. I also agree that a reasonable population decline would help lift living standards in the long run, but would cause short-term problems due partly to "Ponzi-like" government policies. And suburbs will continue to be nice places to live, particularly if we find solutions to our energy problems.


    I only differ on a couple of points:

    1) I still think Back Bay and Beacon Hill houses are built better than MacMansions, which will not last the same 150 years (and counting).

    2) 40B is imperfect, but distributing the less economically fortunate throughout MA is, overall, an improvement over large centers of urban decay (as in Detroit).

    3) Quality of life is subjective. I think my quality of life is better now that I live in a more urban environment. But you and others might understandably feel differently.

    You seem wary of government attempts to solve social problems, and there are good reasons to feel that way. Too often, government interventions cause more problems than they solve. But we need to strive for a better future, and sometimes use government policy as an imperfect tool.

    Lastly, your view of the transitional suburbs and inside 128 core sounds good to me. I hope we continue to maintain and improve it, along with a vibrant downtown.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrbk6q. Show mrbk6q's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    I am Happy to say I agree.. I worked hard for what I have.. I love the suburbs... Raised there and raised my children there.  I  work in another suburb and drive 84 miles everyday.... I am ready to sell my 4 bedroom.... to move to a shack in the city too.... NOT.... Fuel prices stink I agree... but we shoud put the blame on where it belongs.... I have traded my larger vehicle for a smaller one to make my budget work.  Look back 100 years... Get another job if you can not deal with it .... Don't blame the people that live in the burbs and have pride in there homes and yards.. Not to mention are paying much more in fuel and oil just to survive
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from JoanValdez. Show JoanValdez's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    People live in the suburbs because its cheaper and safer than living in the city.  Urban planners blame the suburbs for "a host of societal woes"?  Which ones?  Gang violence?  Drugs?  Unemployment?  Poor school systems?  Single parent families?  Oh yeah, I forgot.  Those are city problems.  Suburbs came to be and continue to strengthen because of the cost of living in the city and the associated crap that comes with it. 

    The suburbs are going nowhere.  People will pay the fuel costs because they have to and need to. The only change in lifestyle or living will come from other parts of the economy - vacations, Christmas, restaurants, and other BS that people never needed anyway. 

    In short, this is a pointless discussion, one best left to ivory tower Harvard eggheads. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from laryan. Show laryan's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Roxbury and Dorchester, really?  I'd suggest you check the facts.  I know nothing about Dorchester.  But I do know that Roxbury prices are up even more dramatically in the past decade than the rest of the city.  These days, Roxbury is priced similarly to a wide swath of the suburbs beyond Route 128 --- with the exception that Roxbury home values are holding up better in the current downturn, due to the excellent location and high gas prices.  Do not be surprised if it becomes difficult to affording a place in Roxbury 20 years from now.  It makes sense, when you think about it.

    As for "streetcar suburbs," remember that term applies to pretty much all of Boston, not just the towns like Arlington or Newton that we consider suburbs today.  Roxbury?  suburb.  JP?  suburb.  Dorchester?  suburb.  Rozzie?  West Roxbury?  all suburbs.  But really, who wants to rides streetcars these days?  They're quaint, but slow.  We need to think ahead and build real transit systems (like the Red, Orange and Blue lines).

    If people really want to stop driving and all move to the city, then we will have a serious problem because there are not enough homes (or land) in the city to accomodate such an influx.  Almost certainly, such a sea change will require an expansion of building density, the T and other urban infrastructure into areas that today are considered more suburban.

    In any case, I'm sure that market forces, along with good planning in response to market forces, will work this out in the end.[/Quote]


    check your facts.  Dorchester, Rozzie, JP, and West Roxbury are all neighborhoods located within City of Boston limits, and are not suburbs of boston. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Giordana. Show Giordana's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]People live in the suburbs because its cheaper and safer than living in the city.  Urban planners blame the suburbs for "a host of societal woes"?  Which ones?  Gang violence?  Drugs?  Unemployment?  Poor school systems?  Single parent families?  Oh yeah, I forgot.  Those are city problems.  Suburbs came to be and continue to strengthen because of the cost of living in the city and the associated crap that comes with it. 
    [/Quote]

    The suburbs were created by the postwar Baby Boom, and helped along with FHA loans (which were only available to whites) and VA mortgages. White flight led to a lot of suburban growth in the 60s and 70s. 

    As far as whether suburbs are an environmental hazard, it depends. Many were constructed with no sidewalks and no acess to public transportation. As Hingham's commuter rail oddessy demonstrated, lots of people like public transit, as long as othe people use it, and it stops nowhere near them.

    Suburbs vs. city life is really a matter of different strokes for different folks. People who like the suburbs or the country will pay whatever it costs to live there. People who like city life will put up with crime, noise, and crowding to avoid dealing with a car.
     

Share