HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2019, 4:22 AM
casper's Avatar
casper casper is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 12,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
It doesn't matter where these people are from. If it is a bad deal then it will play out badly regardless of where people are from. Pretending that this situation is going badly because where people are born is simply bigotry.

Stop your "Canadian interest" dog whistles. Only you have your best interest at heart. Well housed boomers don't have Millenials' best interest. Swanson doesn't have renter's best interest. We align our interest and cooperate through the mutually consenting agreements we sign.

The democratically elected government signed a bad deal. The developer could have been from anywhere. Believing that this deal would have been fine had the developer been born in Canada is whats truly naive
Agreed the management team at any developer prime goal is to get the best deal for their shareholders.

I would however disagree with the boomers vrs Millenials comment in that I don't think either of these group are organised, or broadly share common goals or interests.

Property owners (boomer or Millennial) have more in common than not. While the non-property owners are the opposite.

About two years ago I was a conference where on of the speakers was from a multi-national polling company and discussed store buying habits. Her comment was in all their analysis they divide Millennial into those with and without kids. Once they have kids there perspective changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2019, 7:01 PM
cov cov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Agreed the management team at any developer prime goal is to get the best deal for their shareholders.

I would however disagree with the boomers vrs Millenials comment in that I don't think either of these group are organised, or broadly share common goals or interests.

Property owners (boomer or Millennial) have more in common than not. While the non-property owners are the opposite.

About two years ago I was a conference where on of the speakers was from a multi-national polling company and discussed store buying habits. Her comment was in all their analysis they divide Millennial into those with and without kids. Once they have kids there perspective changes.
I strongly believe that homeownership, taxation, and lifestyle preferences heavily overlap between boomers, frequently at the expense of future generations.

Even older renters who are protected by current tenancy rules shirk at zoning change to perpetuate some past generation privileges that they barely benefit from.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2019, 8:15 PM
rofina rofina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
It doesn't matter where these people are from. If it is a bad deal then it will play out badly regardless of where people are from. Pretending that this situation is going badly because where people are born is simply bigotry.

Stop your "Canadian interest" dog whistles. Only you have your best interest at heart. Well housed boomers don't have Millenials' best interest. Swanson doesn't have renter's best interest. We align our interest and cooperate through the mutually consenting agreements we sign.

The democratically elected government signed a bad deal. The developer could have been from anywhere. Believing that this deal would have been fine had the developer been born in Canada is whats truly naive
Of course it doesn't matter where the people are from, a**holes come in all colours, shapes and sizes.

You brought up bigotry and dog whistles yourself to score some social justice points. This has nothing to do with any of that, and everything to do with foreign ownership of key lands in this City and Province.

Few care which "foreign" it is - be it China, Middle East, Russia, whatever. It means we often loose control of key assets as the sales are not being vetted properly, see the Anbang takeover by the PRC and subsequent sale of Bentalls and Home care services. More recently see the purchase of Grouse Mountain.

Ultimately, no one is to blame but the BC Liberals for making a horrible deal. The only question I would like answered is what did other developer proposals look like and why was Holborn ultimately selected as the winner?

The issue with foreign companies is simple - they have different investment timelines, ideologies and priorities. Our private business ideology is not the same as private business in China, because at scale no business in China is truly private, rather they act as an extension of the PRC.

Part of sale of public lands should be to ensure that the proponent offers the best possible deal for local interests. I'm not convinced that was the case here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2019, 9:22 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by rofina View Post
Canadians are just way too naive.

Other nations, and business' do not have our best interest at heart, I'm confounded that Canadians seem to think they wont be lied to or deceived when dealing with for profit corporations from abroad. Our options for recourse are also very limited by complex international law.

This was a terrible deal for the BC people. That's simply fact. Compounded by the fact the company is essentially an investment arm for wealthy foreign government family.
It's also a classic superiority complex syndrome to assume that everyone here is on a higher moral ground compared to those from abroad. Truth is, it takes two to tango.

Last edited by Vin; Jul 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2019, 9:29 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by rofina View Post
Not at all.

I do think the buyers were deceptive in their intentions based on the facts that have been made available through FOM requests from activists.

The Liberal Govt got played, and rolled by foreign interest. Its really that simple. They are ultimately responsible for making awful deals, and this is one of many.
Get the facts right.

Re: Little Mountain

Little Mountain | Why the Struggle for Social Housing is More Pressing Now than Ever
http://spacing.ca/vancouver/2012/01/16/5345/

[EDITORS NOTE: A special thanks to Andrew Witt and the fine folk at The Mainlander where this piece was originally published.]

The new plan for the redevelopment of Little Mountain neighbourhood in East Vancouver has been released to the public. The plan calls for wholesale gentrification of the Riley Park-Little Mountain neighborhood. The 15-acre site that previously held 224 units of social housing will be replaced with 2,000 units of market condominiums.

In exchange for a zero-percent increase in the amount of affordable housing on the site, the neighborhood will be transformed by luxury condos and retail, putting upward pressure on local property values. Like in other working-areas of Vancouver, this new high-end development will usher in rent increases, more renovictions and even more demolitions.

In Vancouver, there are on average two home demolitions per day. The Little Mountain plan ensures that the rate of demolitions will be particularly high in the Riley Park area. In addition to the demolition of Little Mountain social housing, the city has its sight set on demolishing all single-family homes at the north-east corner of the Little Mountain property.

Even though evictions and displacement are systemic throughout Vancouver, the city has not conducted a social impact study to understand the possible social effects of these demolitions and mega-projects. When asked at Thursday’s press conference whether the City plans to conduct such a study, Senior Planner Ben Johnson said “No,” claiming that there are no impacts because “homes are going for $1million in the neighborhood.” According to the city, the renters who make up large part of Little Mountain, Riley Park, Kensington-Cedar Cottage, Sunset, and Mount Pleasant are not part of the equation.

The new plan announced by the private developer, Holborn Group, consists of sixteen towers of luxury condominiums. There are nine towers planned at ten to fourteen stories, while the rest of the density is spread out between four to nine stories. It is assumed that Holborn bought the property from the provincial government for a price fixed to existing levels of zoning, at four stories, while committing to replace the 224 units of social housing.

This “one-for-one” deal is a coup for Holborn because on a mega-project of this size, the city would normally apply its mega-project housing policy requiring that 20% of all units be social housing. The planned 2,000 units would normally accompany at least 400 units of social housing, but in this case the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the City and the Province assures Holborn that only 224 units are necessary. Furthermore, low-income tenants have been forced into the precarious waiting room of history. The first phase of the project will now not be completed until 2017 at the absolute earliest, even though all replacement housing was promised to be completed by 2010 at the latest.

When Holborn bought Little Mountain, the land was zoned for four stories. Holborn claims to have paid an above-market rate because the Province promised that the land would be upzoned in the future to allow more condo units. Of course, rezoning is a City power, outside the Province’s jurisdiction. If the Province indeed made a guarantee to Holborn that the land would be rezoned, then the Province was on the one hand attempting to undermine the local community planning process (including the existing Riley Park Community Vision), and on the other hand seems to have misrepresented the Province’s powers to Holborn. However, there is no reason to feel sorry for Holborn. Holborn has more than enough lawyers to know exactly what they were getting into. The most likely scenario is that the Province and Holborn colluded to strong-arm the City and undercut local planning processes.

The Province’s strong-arming seems to have worked on the City, as the MOU signed by the City and the Province assumes that there will be future re-zoning — even though increases in zoning would “contradict” the existing Riley Park Community Vision of four stories. The under-selling of a vast parcel of land to a private developer is reminiscent of the infamous sale of Expo lands/North False Creek land to Concord Pacific in 1988. In that case, the Province also tried to guarantee a rezoning without consulting the city or local community.

In Vancouver, land-value is tied to the amount of development allowed on a site, which city planners call Floor Space Ratio (FSR). An FSR of 1 means that the developer can build enough square-footage to cover the entire property to one storey, while an FSR of 2 would allow double that square-footage. Under Little Mountain’s current zoning, the FSR is set at 2. According to the City’s calculations, increasing the FSR to 2.8 would instantly increase the land value by $40M — probably an under-estimate. This increase in land value is called the “land lift.” Unless the City attempts to recoup this value, the money will go directly into Holborn’ pocket as extra-profits, over and above ‘regular’ profit rate of 15%.

According to an independent economic report by Coriolis consultants, the ‘land lift’ to an FSR of 2.8 would allow the city to recoup about $40M from Holborn. In reality, the number would be less because the city normally keeps a maximum of 75%-80% of any value generated from a land-lift — put another way, the city on average gives away at least 20% free money to the developer on any given deal where the zoning happens after the sale. In return, the developers donate to the two main political parties, NPA and Vision.


City of Vancouver Land Lift Calculation for Little Mountain.

Even if the City recoups 80% of the increase land value, Holborn will keep 20% of these extra profits, which in this case may be $10M. In addition to these extra ‘land-lift’ profits, Holborn will still plan to make the ‘regular’ 15% profit on the entire project. Furthermore, the rezoning increases the over-all size of the project dramatically, so this ‘regular rate’ now constitutes 15% of a much larger pie.

To summarize, the current City administration agrees to a regular profit rate of 15%, calculated after construction and land costs. All city calculations are made to guarantee that a developer will earn super-profits at monopoly rates, and that a rate below 15% is deemed “not viable” — of course, the ceiling can be pushed higher and 15% only represents a guaranteed minimum. Then, when the city upzones a property, this becomes 15% of a larger pie. On top of that, the increased land value (land lift) is only partially recouped by the city, the remainder being extra-profits for the developer. Finally, these profits are back payments to the development industry for financing municipal election campaigns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2019, 11:07 PM
cov cov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by rofina View Post
The issue with foreign companies is simple - they have different investment timelines, ideologies and priorities. Our private business ideology is not the same as private business in China, because at scale no business in China is truly private, rather they act as an extension of the PRC.
Broad and vague generalizations, unsubtle superiority complex, and direct contradictions between paragraphs.

Calling out bigotry where its due is common courtesy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 12:34 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
Broad and vague generalizations, unsubtle superiority complex, and direct contradictions between paragraphs.

Calling out bigotry where its due is common courtesy.
Only you are dog whistling as there was no bigotry in the first place. Not wanting to be sold out has nothing to do with bigotry.

Let me get as open ended as you... can I sell you as a slave if that's my business model? By your logic denying me your servitude is bigotry because you do not agree with my idea of business. I did not agree with the idea of business by our previous government. Unless your implication was that I am being a bigot toward the Liberal government?

Quote:
bigotry
If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bigotry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 12:43 AM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Only you are dog whistling as there was no bigotry in the first place. Not wanting to be sold out has nothing to do with bigotry.

Let me get as open ended as you... can I sell you as a slave if that's my business model? By your logic denying me your servitude is bigotry because you do not agree with my idea of business. I did not agree with the idea of business by our previous government. Unless your implication was that I am being a bigot toward the Liberal government?

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bigotry
There is bigotry if the blame game is one-sided, as demonstrated by many cases here. Many just don't start off blaming government policies (a government chosen by the locals) as well as greedy locals making quick sales when there are easy scapegoats from abroad.

This forum thread is for social housing discussions, and lo and behold, why is PRC dragged into the discussion in the first place?

If anything, we should be looking at ourselves for propping up the Liberal governments so long, and their lack of action on solving homeless issues in the various municipalities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 2:38 AM
cov cov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Let me get as open ended as you... can I sell you as a slave if that's my business model?
Yikes. We are talking about the fact that blaming bad contracts on where people are from here is bigoted. Your exaggerated spiel about slaves isn't doing you any favors. Little mountain had nothing to do with slaves.

The superiority complex is also gross, bigotry isn't tolerated here. thx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 3:24 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
Yikes. We are talking about the fact that blaming bad contracts on where people are from here is bigoted. Your exaggerated spiel about slaves isn't doing you any favors. Little mountain had nothing to do with slaves.

The superiority complex is also gross, bigotry isn't tolerated here. thx

Just matching your level of idiocy to show how ridiculous it is, you brought bigotry into this out of nowhere in a totally unfounded way. Added to my ignore list. Bye Felicia, thx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 4:28 PM
cov cov is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Just matching your level of idiocy to show how ridiculous it is, you brought bigotry into this out of nowhere in a totally unfounded way. Added to my ignore list. Bye Felicia, thx
Bigotry in this context means prejudice and discrimination, which I demonstrated very clearly from the comments above. Calling names while not addressing any of the points I made is honestly middle school level critical thinking. No thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 6:59 PM
rofina rofina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
Broad and vague generalizations, unsubtle superiority complex, and direct contradictions between paragraphs.

Calling out bigotry where its due is common courtesy.
Are you interested in a conversation or do you prefer to lob social justice accusations from the sides?

Unsubtle superiority complex? Broad and vague generalisations?

Your contribution so far has amounted to "bigotry."

Last edited by rofina; Jul 25, 2019 at 7:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 7:14 PM
rofina rofina is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
There is bigotry if the blame game is one-sided, as demonstrated by many cases here. Many just don't start off blaming government policies (a government chosen by the locals) as well as greedy locals making quick sales when there are easy scapegoats from abroad.

This forum thread is for social housing discussions, and lo and behold, why is PRC dragged into the discussion in the first place?

If anything, we should be looking at ourselves for propping up the Liberal governments so long, and their lack of action on solving homeless issues in the various municipalities.
I brought the PRC into this to demonstrate that foreign interests often don't always align with local interests.

The job of government, particularly in a globalised world, is to represent and protect the interests of its citizens. This has nothing to do with inferiority, or superiority, it has everything to do with aligning interests.

Many countries don't allow foreign ownership, period. That's their prerogative. I doubt its driven by bigotry. Its likely driven by national best interest.

Its only in the Western world where its somehow bigoted or worse to point out that were all different people, with different ideals, and different goals. Those goals wont always line up for better or worse. Its important to acknowledge that before getting into bed with someone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #454  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 7:18 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
It doesn't matter where these people are from. If it is a bad deal then it will play out badly regardless of where people are from. Pretending that this situation is going badly because where people are born is simply bigotry.

Stop your "Canadian interest" dog whistles. Only you have your best interest at heart. Well housed boomers don't have Millenials' best interest. Swanson doesn't have renter's best interest. We align our interest and cooperate through the mutually consenting agreements we sign.

The democratically elected government signed a bad deal. The developer could have been from anywhere. Believing that this deal would have been fine had the developer been born in Canada is whats truly naive
Nonsense.

Local companies have more of a vested interest in maintaining corporate goodwill and a good reputation. Dies a firm halfway around the world really care what you or I think of them, especially when they had regimes like the BC Lieberals and Vision Vancouver whose only question for developers was “ how far can I bend over for you?”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #455  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 7:24 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by cov View Post
It doesn't matter where these people are from. If it is a bad deal then it will play out badly regardless of where people are from. Pretending that this situation is going badly because where people are born is simply bigotry.

Stop your "Canadian interest" dog whistles. Only you have your best interest at heart. Well housed boomers don't have Millenials' best interest. Swanson doesn't have renter's best interest. We align our interest and cooperate through the mutually consenting agreements we sign.

The democratically elected government signed a bad deal. The developer could have been from anywhere. Believing that this deal would have been fine had the developer been born in Canada is whats truly naive
What a load of malarkey.

A company located halfway around the world doesn’t care what you think of them, especially when they had regimes like the B.C. Lieberals and Vision Vancouverwhose only questioning if developers was “have I bent over far enough for you?”

Local firms have a vested interest in maintaining goodwill in the cities and towns they are based in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #456  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2019, 8:28 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
What a load of malarkey.

A company located halfway around the world doesn’t care what you think of them, especially when they had regimes like the B.C. Lieberals and Vision Vancouverwhose only questioning if developers was “have I bent over far enough for you?”

Local firms have a vested interest in maintaining goodwill in the cities and towns they are based in.
Any company local or otherwise can be owned by locals or international. Whether they are good or bad can be quite random, we have several local companies that have been found to be fradulent/corrupt. We also have several local developers who tend to open, build crap, sell it, then go bankrupt. Hell Onni is local and I'll take an international developer over them any day. International developers like Concord have much better reputations than some of our local developers. Probably Onni gives Vancouver companies a bad name internationally. Just like we can't blame internationals for our super high bike theft rate. We are by no means perfect or better than anyone else. And btw I notice you mention the Liberals and Vision supporting developers despite them being on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. In the end I suspect every government has to deal with developers along with all matter of other businesses and its better to do so in a friendly fashion to get things done?

Also I love how somehow the connection between Vision and the BC NDP has been completely ignored/conveniently forgotten by you. Doesn't it seem ironic that your criticizing one government and praising the other despite them both having endorsed/supported each other while sharing the same employees and backers? When the BC Liberals came in Vision even criticized Robertson for giving them the standard welcome. Your praising the policies of the NDP despite them having been written by the same staff that wrote Vision's policies.

Last edited by misher; Jul 25, 2019 at 9:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #457  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2019, 8:29 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Relevent

Quote:
The story behind the government's largest sale of 'surplus' land: Did taxpayers get a good deal?

...These Pearson-Dogwood lands were bought by developer Onni for $302 million. It was, by far, the largest sale under a provincial program started in 2013 to liquidate “surplus” public land to raise money for government. This single transaction represented nearly one third of the $1 billion in deals the former Liberal government signed while selling more than 160 properties, including schools, hospitals and industrial lots.

Experts have raised concerns about the structure of the Pearson-Dogwood deal and question whether taxpayers are better off now that they no longer own this prime property, which is near SkyTrain stops, schools and the Oakridge shopping centre.

It is not new for governments to sell land, but Postmedia took an in-depth look at the Pearson-Dogwood deal given what it recently uncovered about the province’s 2008 sale of Little Mountain. The developer who bought that property still owes the province $230 million and 229 social housing units more than 11 years after the sale.

“The public sector and public institutions or non-profits should never sell their land. If they want to benefit from the value of their land as an asset, it should be leased,” says Herb Auerbach, a veteran real estate consultant and urban planning academic at Simon Fraser University’s City Program.

“You have to appreciate that (with some land), it’s not just a simple real estate play. It’s not just a simple transaction,” says Gordon Harris, a professional urban planner and CEO of SFU Community Trust. “Once you sell it, it’s gone.”...

...The Liberals justified the sale of public land by saying it needed the money to balance the budget, but in some recent big-ticket sales, it provided low-rate mortgages to the buyers and therefore the province hasn’t yet collected all the money it claimed to have raised.

The province is still owed $137 million for Pearson-Dogwood, $233 million for Little Mountain, and more than $250 million from the 2016 sale of the Oakridge Transit Centre — totalling $620 million in outstanding payments.
Full story:
https://theprovince.com/business/real-es...wcm/13a47d68-9275-4731-8617-ab90f3679f75
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #458  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2019, 6:54 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
What a load of malarkey.

A company located halfway around the world doesn’t care what you think of them, especially when they had regimes like the B.C. Lieberals and Vision Vancouverwhose only questioning if developers was “have I bent over far enough for you?”

Local firms have a vested interest in maintaining goodwill in the cities and towns they are based in.
And what do you mean by "local firms"? Is "SNC Lavalin" a local firm? What about Onni, has it maintained goodwill in Richmond?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #459  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2019, 7:10 PM
misher's Avatar
misher misher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 4,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
And what do you mean by "local firms"? Is "SNC Lavalin" a local firm? What about Onni, has it maintained goodwill in Richmond?
Onni seems universally hated everywhere in Metro Vancouver

Overall I'd prefer local over foreign, but this is a minor factor. A big developer who has a reputation to defend is preferred over a small developer with Onni being the exception. Also concrete over woodframe. And a developer who has built the same or a similar building before over one thats new and unheard of.

I love PCI and ASPAC because they are spending over a decade building developments that are similar to the last building they built and refining/improving the development each time. This makes for much less risk as they've done the same thing before and you can look at their last building next door to judge how the next building will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #460  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2019, 7:17 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,826
"The province is still owed $137 million for Pearson-Dogwood, $233 million for Little Mountain, and more than $250 million from the 2016 sale of the Oakridge Transit Centre — totalling $620 million in outstanding payments."

Sickening, but totally expected from the scammers that make up the BC Lieberals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Downtown & City of Vancouver
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:56 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.