I live in a neighborhood in North Berkeley where a lot of people bought their house 30 or 40 years ago when they were young. They bought the houses at various times of course but generally the ones that have lived here the longest paid under $100,000. The houses now sell for around a million dollars.
Their houses were relatively expensive when they bought 30 or 40 years ago, compared to housing in other parts of the state or country, and they are still relatively expensive compared to other parts of the state or country. Relatively the value of the house hasn't changed, the big dollar increase is mostly simply inflation. They haven't really gained much over all those years.
Before 1995 the homeowners in our neighborhood could have sold the house and as long as they rolled the money over into buying a replacement residence they would face no capital gains. They could downsize to a smaller house and stay in the neighborhood where they have lived there whole life and where all there friends reside. But Congress in 1995 threw out the old rollover rule that had been the law for at least 50 years. Instead now when you sell your house you get a flat Capital Gains exemption of either $250,000 or $500,000, depending on whether you are married or single.
That $250,000 / $500,000 exemption probably still works pretty good for folks in parts of the country where house prices have always been lower. But it is crippling in the markets where housing is more expensive. Older people who want to sell are staggared by the size of the potential capital gains tax, and the tax would effectively leave them without enough money to buy a new place in their neigborhood. To move or downsize they would have to pay a big tax and then have to move somewhere cheaper to afford housing. So they stay. As a result almost no houses are for sale in our part of town, which means that when a house comes on the market, very wealthy folks sweep in and snatch it up. A house a little further up the hill came on the market last year. It was not in very good shape, so was offered at $600,000. Almost immediately a developer stepped in, offered $950,000. The developer prettied the house up and sold it a few months later for somewhere around $1,300,000.
One of our elderly neighbors had to move into a residential care facility. Her children, who live out of town, couldn't sell the house to pay for the care because the tax obligation would have been so crippling. So they are left renting the house, unable to sell the house until their mother dies, at which point they get a stepped up basis (so in the eyes of the tax man they don't have any gain) and the tax obligation goes away.
Berkeley, and I am sure a lot of other neighborhoods in this country, are tangled up in a classic catch 22. Inflation, and the real estate bubble that the capital gains tax changes contributed to, has driven the price of the houses up to the point where many people can't afford to move. So they don't, and the lack of inventory drives the prices up even higher, making moving impossible for even more people. Young people can't afford to buy, older people can't afford to move.
Thanks, Congress.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
How Inflation Relates to Unemployment Levels
(An abstract of my take on an Economist article reviewing recent research findings - 2/1/14 p.66)
Economists have been surprised by how low the unemployment rate is in the US and Britain a few years down the road from the financial collapse. And even though both Britain and the US now have relatively low unemployment rates, they seem to be driven by totally different circumstances.
Britain's economy has been pretty stagnant since the economic downturn, but they didn't lose many jobs and in fact now have more people working that before the downturn, but productivity per worker has been falling.
In the US growth has been stronger, but most of the drop in unemployment relates to people leaving the work force, not the creation of new jobs, and productivity per worker has continued to rise. There are actually fewer people employed in the US that before the recession began, but productivity is up.
New research suggests the key is that inflation in Britain is about 3.1% while inflation in the US is 1.8%. In Britain, even though workers have had modest wage increase, Britain wages have, in real terms, fallen by 7.8% since the crash, while the price of the goods and services companies provide has gone up, so employers can afford to increase production and hire people.
In the US, since inflation has been much lower, real wages have fallen far less, US workers have actually seen a 2% overall rise in wages since the crash, so workers are still relatively expensive compared to what companies can get for their goods and services.
The related economic concept is called "sticky wages" - the notion workers are very resistant to taking a pay cut directly, but are somewhat oblivious to loss of purchasing power through inflation. So in a recession with mild inflation employers find it hard to get people to accept wage cuts, so must push their workers to be more productive. The increased productivity per worker means the employer doesn't need to hire more people.
A related concept noted in the article is the possibility the big losses banks absorbed in the financial collapse made banks more inclined to require tangible assets that will act as security before they will make a loan. So companies who rely on lots of machinery are better placed to be successful to get financing, and thus can expand and drive growth in the post recovery, but companies who rely more on workers and less on machines can't get financing necessary to hire more people to expand production.
Economists have been surprised by how low the unemployment rate is in the US and Britain a few years down the road from the financial collapse. And even though both Britain and the US now have relatively low unemployment rates, they seem to be driven by totally different circumstances.
Britain's economy has been pretty stagnant since the economic downturn, but they didn't lose many jobs and in fact now have more people working that before the downturn, but productivity per worker has been falling.
In the US growth has been stronger, but most of the drop in unemployment relates to people leaving the work force, not the creation of new jobs, and productivity per worker has continued to rise. There are actually fewer people employed in the US that before the recession began, but productivity is up.
New research suggests the key is that inflation in Britain is about 3.1% while inflation in the US is 1.8%. In Britain, even though workers have had modest wage increase, Britain wages have, in real terms, fallen by 7.8% since the crash, while the price of the goods and services companies provide has gone up, so employers can afford to increase production and hire people.
In the US, since inflation has been much lower, real wages have fallen far less, US workers have actually seen a 2% overall rise in wages since the crash, so workers are still relatively expensive compared to what companies can get for their goods and services.
The related economic concept is called "sticky wages" - the notion workers are very resistant to taking a pay cut directly, but are somewhat oblivious to loss of purchasing power through inflation. So in a recession with mild inflation employers find it hard to get people to accept wage cuts, so must push their workers to be more productive. The increased productivity per worker means the employer doesn't need to hire more people.
A related concept noted in the article is the possibility the big losses banks absorbed in the financial collapse made banks more inclined to require tangible assets that will act as security before they will make a loan. So companies who rely on lots of machinery are better placed to be successful to get financing, and thus can expand and drive growth in the post recovery, but companies who rely more on workers and less on machines can't get financing necessary to hire more people to expand production.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Why Republican's Are Losing Credibility with Voters
Yesterday House Republican's, despite their dismal appeal to voting hispanics, decided not to allow immigration reform to happen this year, evidently out of fear of backlash from their base in the coming primary elections. Of course that wasn't why they said they were not going to act. Their party line justification was that "they can't trust Obama to enforce the law."
This was a laughable excuse on many levels, but the real irony was that the Economist magazine that just hit the newstands was ripping Obama because he has in fact deported far more people than any President in history.
It has been apparent to those of us in California (particularly former Republican's like me who are somewhat sympathetic to some Republican ideals) that the national Republican party is going down the same path that led the California Republican party to the irrelevancy of having no Republican who holds statewide office, and large Democratic majorities in both house of the legislature (and, embarrassingly - now that Republican's are shut out California's economy is climbing back on its feet).
There is delicious irony in all this. Republican's tend toward take no prisoners election tactics. They have put a high value on gaming the system to gerrymander districts to maximize the value of Republican votes, they worked at suppressing voter turnout, they pounded on gays to exploit peoples prejudice, now they are reaping the harvest. Everyone but the far right has relaxed about gays, and now Republican districts are so right wing they cannot do what even big business Republicans realize the nation needs without subjecting House members to vicious primary challenges. We are probably a couple of election cycles from a complete shutout of Republican influence, but Republican irrelevancy is becoming more and more likely all the time as House Republicans publicly contort themselves to please their base.
This was a laughable excuse on many levels, but the real irony was that the Economist magazine that just hit the newstands was ripping Obama because he has in fact deported far more people than any President in history.
It has been apparent to those of us in California (particularly former Republican's like me who are somewhat sympathetic to some Republican ideals) that the national Republican party is going down the same path that led the California Republican party to the irrelevancy of having no Republican who holds statewide office, and large Democratic majorities in both house of the legislature (and, embarrassingly - now that Republican's are shut out California's economy is climbing back on its feet).
There is delicious irony in all this. Republican's tend toward take no prisoners election tactics. They have put a high value on gaming the system to gerrymander districts to maximize the value of Republican votes, they worked at suppressing voter turnout, they pounded on gays to exploit peoples prejudice, now they are reaping the harvest. Everyone but the far right has relaxed about gays, and now Republican districts are so right wing they cannot do what even big business Republicans realize the nation needs without subjecting House members to vicious primary challenges. We are probably a couple of election cycles from a complete shutout of Republican influence, but Republican irrelevancy is becoming more and more likely all the time as House Republicans publicly contort themselves to please their base.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Post Office Blues
About a month ago I ordered stamps online from the Post Office, to be delivered to my PO Box. A few days later I find a torn mailing envelope in my PO box from the "USPS Stamp Fulfillment Services". It is empty and has a sticker on the outside of the package that says "Received in Damaged Condition".
I immediately go to the counter at the local substation where I have the Post Office box and eventually end up talking to the guy who says he received the empty torn package and put a label that it was damaged on it and put it in the PO Box. He tells me to come back the next day and talk to a Supervisor because he doesn't know what to do. I come back the next day and after standing in line forever get told I have to go to the main Berkeley Post Office and talk to "the" supervisor.
I went home and emailed back to the email address that had told me my stamps had been shipped and informed them the package had arrived empty. I never got any response to that email.
So I went to the main Berkeley Post Office, stood in line forever to be told the Supervisor wasn't available but the Clerk would pass on a message. Being dubious I asked instead for the Supervisors email address so I could contact the Supervisor directly. I went home and emailed the Supervisor and got back an immediate message that the address was invalid.
So then I went to the USPS web site, found this page for Customer Service and emailed to that address. The web page said they will respond "within 24 hours". That was on January 24, now 11 days ago. I have never heard one word from the USPS.
What drives me crazy about this is the package was never out of the PO hands. It went from their shipping facilities, presumably on their trucks and airplanes, to my PO Box, and it was ripped and emptied somewhere along the way. But they seem to have absolutely no interest in taking responsbility for solving my problem.
I often and irritiated with the policies of the AT&T's, Comcasts etc of the private sector, but at least they realize that keeping customers happy means they need to respond to problems.
I immediately go to the counter at the local substation where I have the Post Office box and eventually end up talking to the guy who says he received the empty torn package and put a label that it was damaged on it and put it in the PO Box. He tells me to come back the next day and talk to a Supervisor because he doesn't know what to do. I come back the next day and after standing in line forever get told I have to go to the main Berkeley Post Office and talk to "the" supervisor.
I went home and emailed back to the email address that had told me my stamps had been shipped and informed them the package had arrived empty. I never got any response to that email.
So I went to the main Berkeley Post Office, stood in line forever to be told the Supervisor wasn't available but the Clerk would pass on a message. Being dubious I asked instead for the Supervisors email address so I could contact the Supervisor directly. I went home and emailed the Supervisor and got back an immediate message that the address was invalid.
So then I went to the USPS web site, found this page for Customer Service and emailed to that address. The web page said they will respond "within 24 hours". That was on January 24, now 11 days ago. I have never heard one word from the USPS.
What drives me crazy about this is the package was never out of the PO hands. It went from their shipping facilities, presumably on their trucks and airplanes, to my PO Box, and it was ripped and emptied somewhere along the way. But they seem to have absolutely no interest in taking responsbility for solving my problem.
I often and irritiated with the policies of the AT&T's, Comcasts etc of the private sector, but at least they realize that keeping customers happy means they need to respond to problems.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
The Future of the Housing Market in California
This last year we experienced a little mini-boom in housing. Is this a real recovery? Does that mean the long term outlook for housing as an investment is good?
Saw a statistic earlier this year about who was buying houses. The long term average was 82% were homeowners planning to occupy the homes, 18% investors looking for income. The current average is 69% homeowners planning to occupy the homes and 31% are investors looking for income.
The Capital Gains law was changed in 1996 to make speculation in the housing market by investors more lucrative and it appears to me it has introduced a permanent element of boom or bust in the housing market, and priced many people out of the market. We are following a path similar to 1920 to 1954. In 1920 Congress cut capital gains taxes on houses. The market boomed for a decade then collapsed and was unstable for two decades. Only after Congress changed the law to make it more beneficial to own a house to live in than to speculate in housing did the stable market we enjoyed for decades become a feature.
Saw a statistic earlier this year about who was buying houses. The long term average was 82% were homeowners planning to occupy the homes, 18% investors looking for income. The current average is 69% homeowners planning to occupy the homes and 31% are investors looking for income.
The Capital Gains law was changed in 1996 to make speculation in the housing market by investors more lucrative and it appears to me it has introduced a permanent element of boom or bust in the housing market, and priced many people out of the market. We are following a path similar to 1920 to 1954. In 1920 Congress cut capital gains taxes on houses. The market boomed for a decade then collapsed and was unstable for two decades. Only after Congress changed the law to make it more beneficial to own a house to live in than to speculate in housing did the stable market we enjoyed for decades become a feature.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Sustainable Government
We hear a lot in the media about sustainable agriculture, sustainable energy - almost everything subject to public policy has someone espousing a "sustainable" version. It is easy to parody, but the underlying notion of "sustainability" is a noteworthy step forward in human thinking. It involves thinking beyond what we think is best for us right now to seek solutions that take into account long term consequences - to seek solutions that also will work well for future generations.
What about sustainable government? The history of government, even here in the US, is a history on see-sawing battles between interest groups seeking control. Why can't we start formulating public policy with an eye to create a framework that controls some of the tendency's in government most of us would recognize as not beneficial, but which we usually can't address in the ordinary sphere of political give and take.
Things like the fact that the people that govern, even in a democracy, always manage to do well. Almost every local government, state government and the Federal government in the US currently faces overwhelming long term debts to address promises made to the public or public employee's based on foolishly optimistic projections of future income. Many southern European countries are on the verge of financial collapse due to their inability to control the cost's of government employee's and pensions.
A simple first step toward more sustainable government would be to directly link pay and benefits for Government employee's to a figure just slightly below what people in the private sector make. Government salaries would adjust annually based on the private sector averages from, for example, three years earlier. In this way in an economic downtown we would still have three years during which the buying power of Government employee's would remain stable, or even increase a little to offset the slowdown in the private sector.
This notion would not have been very feasible historically, but with modern technology we have massive data crunching capability today that would make the computations relatively simple.
Some would argue we will not be able to get good people in government if their wages are always a little lower than the private sector. Even if that were true, the private sector is what drives growth, so that is not necessarily a bad thing. But I don't believe that would be true. As an employer I have realized that many of the most reliable and dedicated employee's I have had over the years were motivated much more by the desire to meet their own high standards of performance, and a desire to help people, than by money.
A part of sustainable government also needs to hold a baseline against the fluctuations in private sector values. In the 1980's the old values of work as service to the public and rewarding in itself were swept aside by the folk that see only money. We cut taxes on rich folk and filled the tax code with exemptions and credits on the theory the people with money would invest it in driving the economy forward. Old firms where the owners valued employees and service to the public were sucked up by big money interests and every vestige of the firm that interfered with making the most money as possible as fast as possible was eliminated. That ethic has ruled for approaching 30 years and it has sent all the money into the hands of the wealthy. The notion that money bought competence also infected Government, so in (for example) 2010 the California Department of Corrections had over 50 employee's who made more than $500,000 a year in salary. I don't think many people would have ever thought of the California Department of Corrections as a poster boy for competence.
The result of the money first philosophy that has dominated the last 30 years is a stagnant economy that the money obsessed are sure is going to break out in wild spending rehash of the early 2000's at any minute, but which in fact just plugs along, stagnant. The reason is there is not enough money in the hands of consumers to support growth. Rich folk have what they want so they buy assets, regular folk are the ones who buy stuff. And since the regular folk don't have much money to buy stuff, investing in new businesses is really risky, so the rich folk just buy assets. In the last 70 years, if you counted up all the media talk about "asset bubbles" it would all have occurred in the the last 20 years. Bubbles in stocks, repeatedly, bubbles in housing repeatedly, bubbles in commodities.
Government can't control what the private sector thinks, but it needs to have an ethic that insulates it from the influence of the greed mongers.
What about sustainable government? The history of government, even here in the US, is a history on see-sawing battles between interest groups seeking control. Why can't we start formulating public policy with an eye to create a framework that controls some of the tendency's in government most of us would recognize as not beneficial, but which we usually can't address in the ordinary sphere of political give and take.
Things like the fact that the people that govern, even in a democracy, always manage to do well. Almost every local government, state government and the Federal government in the US currently faces overwhelming long term debts to address promises made to the public or public employee's based on foolishly optimistic projections of future income. Many southern European countries are on the verge of financial collapse due to their inability to control the cost's of government employee's and pensions.
A simple first step toward more sustainable government would be to directly link pay and benefits for Government employee's to a figure just slightly below what people in the private sector make. Government salaries would adjust annually based on the private sector averages from, for example, three years earlier. In this way in an economic downtown we would still have three years during which the buying power of Government employee's would remain stable, or even increase a little to offset the slowdown in the private sector.
This notion would not have been very feasible historically, but with modern technology we have massive data crunching capability today that would make the computations relatively simple.
Some would argue we will not be able to get good people in government if their wages are always a little lower than the private sector. Even if that were true, the private sector is what drives growth, so that is not necessarily a bad thing. But I don't believe that would be true. As an employer I have realized that many of the most reliable and dedicated employee's I have had over the years were motivated much more by the desire to meet their own high standards of performance, and a desire to help people, than by money.
A part of sustainable government also needs to hold a baseline against the fluctuations in private sector values. In the 1980's the old values of work as service to the public and rewarding in itself were swept aside by the folk that see only money. We cut taxes on rich folk and filled the tax code with exemptions and credits on the theory the people with money would invest it in driving the economy forward. Old firms where the owners valued employees and service to the public were sucked up by big money interests and every vestige of the firm that interfered with making the most money as possible as fast as possible was eliminated. That ethic has ruled for approaching 30 years and it has sent all the money into the hands of the wealthy. The notion that money bought competence also infected Government, so in (for example) 2010 the California Department of Corrections had over 50 employee's who made more than $500,000 a year in salary. I don't think many people would have ever thought of the California Department of Corrections as a poster boy for competence.
The result of the money first philosophy that has dominated the last 30 years is a stagnant economy that the money obsessed are sure is going to break out in wild spending rehash of the early 2000's at any minute, but which in fact just plugs along, stagnant. The reason is there is not enough money in the hands of consumers to support growth. Rich folk have what they want so they buy assets, regular folk are the ones who buy stuff. And since the regular folk don't have much money to buy stuff, investing in new businesses is really risky, so the rich folk just buy assets. In the last 70 years, if you counted up all the media talk about "asset bubbles" it would all have occurred in the the last 20 years. Bubbles in stocks, repeatedly, bubbles in housing repeatedly, bubbles in commodities.
Government can't control what the private sector thinks, but it needs to have an ethic that insulates it from the influence of the greed mongers.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
A Chance Enounter
I ran into Jesus the other day. He was sitting on a bench on a bluff overlooking the Ocean in Carmel looking at the Sunset. With his beard and rough looking cloak he looked like just another of the homeless guys I had seen around town, but the yellow glow around his head gave him away.
I just stood there for a minute, trying to figure out what to do. I wanted to talk to him but he seemed to be enjoying his solitude, and I couldn't think of what to say. The thought I could ask for his autograph popped into my head, but I was immediately embarrassed to have had the thought, so just sat down quietly on the other end of the bench.
"You should be embarrassed" he said, gently. "But you don't need a reason to talk to me."
"Umm, how are..." I stopped mid sentence, it was so banal. What do you say to Jesus?
"I'm fine, thank you," he said. "You say whatever you like. Next you are going to wonder what I am doing here. I am just having a little time to reflect. I am retired you know."
"Retired?" The word popped out of my mouth before I could stop it.
"Well, yeah. My job ended 2000 years ago. I just drop in from time to time to see how I did." He paused for a minute then continued. "It's a little frustrating, so sometimes I want to just chill."
I looked around, a little confused about what he would be doing in Carmel.
"It's very nice here, and I like to watch people play golf," he said. "It takes my mind off the frustration. You know Golf is one of the most frustrating games in the world. I find it comforting to see how other people deal with the frustration."
"Next you are going to ask what I am frustrated about," he said, anticipating my question before it had fully formed in my head. "God gave me the job of teaching the Jews to stop focusing on the sins of other people and reach into their heart to get to know God. 2000 years later instead of abolishing the power of those who wrap themselves in God to tell other people what to do my words have been used to set up hundreds of new organizations claiming to speak for God."
He sounded a little...worked up about this.
"I suppose I am," he said. "It wasn't easy you know. Trying to tell people that the Temple bigwigs claiming to speak for God were not the path to God without getting thrown in jail was really hard. That time the Pharisee's brought that poor women to me wanting me to order her to be stoned, that was close. I'm not that glib you know."
"I talked all over Galilee to tell people all God wants from us is to accept our imperfections and love and support others, but all these people keep wrapping themselves in God to drum up support to use the government to lean on gay people, or stop people from having abortions, or drop bombs on some bad country."
We sat in silence for a minute. I was too surprised to even form a question in my head that he could mind-read. But he continued after a moment.
"When God gave Moses the 10 Commandments to tell people how to please God he should have been more careful in his language. He said "Thou shalt not... and ever since people have been adding the phrase "...or allow others to".
"A few months ago the newspapers were full of stories about all these guys trying to pass laws to stop women from having abortions." He shook his head. "God told them in Genesis that the breath of life is imparted at birth, but they are all obsessed with creating definitions that will allow them to force women to bear children. It is like they think God can't handle his own business."
"I've talked to God about making a clearer statement," he mused. "Lots of times actually. He is always kind and patient but basically tells me to butt out. One time he told me the ones that figure out he wants people who chose him, not sheep he can herd, were the keepers."
He looked at me then smiled and slowly stood up. "It's been nice talking with you," he said. "But long walks are also good for dealing with frustration, and its time for my walk."
Before I could say anything I heard a noise behind me and looked back. When I turned back toward him he was gone. But there was a slip of paper on the bench.
"Good spot to be tomorrow evening," it said. "Really great sunset scheduled."
I just stood there for a minute, trying to figure out what to do. I wanted to talk to him but he seemed to be enjoying his solitude, and I couldn't think of what to say. The thought I could ask for his autograph popped into my head, but I was immediately embarrassed to have had the thought, so just sat down quietly on the other end of the bench.
"You should be embarrassed" he said, gently. "But you don't need a reason to talk to me."
"Umm, how are..." I stopped mid sentence, it was so banal. What do you say to Jesus?
"I'm fine, thank you," he said. "You say whatever you like. Next you are going to wonder what I am doing here. I am just having a little time to reflect. I am retired you know."
"Retired?" The word popped out of my mouth before I could stop it.
"Well, yeah. My job ended 2000 years ago. I just drop in from time to time to see how I did." He paused for a minute then continued. "It's a little frustrating, so sometimes I want to just chill."
I looked around, a little confused about what he would be doing in Carmel.
"It's very nice here, and I like to watch people play golf," he said. "It takes my mind off the frustration. You know Golf is one of the most frustrating games in the world. I find it comforting to see how other people deal with the frustration."
"Next you are going to ask what I am frustrated about," he said, anticipating my question before it had fully formed in my head. "God gave me the job of teaching the Jews to stop focusing on the sins of other people and reach into their heart to get to know God. 2000 years later instead of abolishing the power of those who wrap themselves in God to tell other people what to do my words have been used to set up hundreds of new organizations claiming to speak for God."
He sounded a little...worked up about this.
"I suppose I am," he said. "It wasn't easy you know. Trying to tell people that the Temple bigwigs claiming to speak for God were not the path to God without getting thrown in jail was really hard. That time the Pharisee's brought that poor women to me wanting me to order her to be stoned, that was close. I'm not that glib you know."
"I talked all over Galilee to tell people all God wants from us is to accept our imperfections and love and support others, but all these people keep wrapping themselves in God to drum up support to use the government to lean on gay people, or stop people from having abortions, or drop bombs on some bad country."
We sat in silence for a minute. I was too surprised to even form a question in my head that he could mind-read. But he continued after a moment.
"When God gave Moses the 10 Commandments to tell people how to please God he should have been more careful in his language. He said "Thou shalt not... and ever since people have been adding the phrase "...or allow others to".
"A few months ago the newspapers were full of stories about all these guys trying to pass laws to stop women from having abortions." He shook his head. "God told them in Genesis that the breath of life is imparted at birth, but they are all obsessed with creating definitions that will allow them to force women to bear children. It is like they think God can't handle his own business."
"I've talked to God about making a clearer statement," he mused. "Lots of times actually. He is always kind and patient but basically tells me to butt out. One time he told me the ones that figure out he wants people who chose him, not sheep he can herd, were the keepers."
He looked at me then smiled and slowly stood up. "It's been nice talking with you," he said. "But long walks are also good for dealing with frustration, and its time for my walk."
Before I could say anything I heard a noise behind me and looked back. When I turned back toward him he was gone. But there was a slip of paper on the bench.
"Good spot to be tomorrow evening," it said. "Really great sunset scheduled."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)