Skip to content

Roundup 2-16-2018

February 15, 2018

Contents

Transportation – It is What We Thought It Was, Cont

— St. Pete

Downtown – Still No

Downtown/Channel District – JW Marriott

Downtown – Encore, Maybe

Downtown – Jackson House

Rays – Ybor

Downtown – River Focus

Transportation – Keep Moving, Keep Growing

Economic Development – Where the Millennials Are

Meanwhile, In the Rest of the State

List of the Week

_____________________________________________


Transportation – It is What We Thought It Was, Cont

When the Regional Transit Study folks first proposed their regional (express) bus plan, we listed five issues (aside from frequency and finding the money) that quickly came to mind:

1.) This is not BRT (let alone “gold standard” BRT), at least not the vast majority of it. (Because it is just a bus, we don’t even need to get into the “BRT is like rail” discussion.) From Wesley Chapel to “USF” (see #3 below) it is in regular traffic lanes (not BRT).  After that, it is running on the shoulder to downtown, which is not a dedicated lane (not BRT).  The stretch from downtown to Westshore seems to be BRT, though not in downtown (mostly BRT).  The Howard Frankland Bridge will be in express lanes, which, once again, is in traffic (not BRT).  In Pinellas, it is back on the shoulder (not BRT).  Simply put, it is not BRT, it is an express bus.

2.) There is a problem running on the shoulder.  Namely, what happens if a car has trouble, as inevitably some will?  Does it pull over and block the buses or does it stay in traffic and block the interstate? (If so, how does that help congestion?) What about an accident?  What happens to bus timing and trip length? Will that be dependable?

3.) The connections to activity centers are problematic at best.  First, based on the map, this plan does not seem to go to USF.  It seems to stop miles from USF.  Downtown is a little better assuming the streetcar actually is extended to the Marion Street Transit Center.  The connection to the airport in Westshore should be ok assuming the people mover is extended as planned to the multimodal center.  However, getting around Westshore will require using another circulator.  Same in Gateway.  Downtown St. Pete seems the best thought out portion if the system actually uses the same dedicated lanes there as proposed for the much more BRT-like proposed route to St. Pete Beach, and assuming that is built.

We get that you cannot directly connect every location of interest, but most real transit systems make an effort to get pretty close to where people want to go in major urban areas, at least basic walking distance. Otherwise, you get transfers to get to the system and transfers getting off the system.  The more transfers you have to make, the longer and less sure every trip becomes. That hurts choice ridership and makes the whole thing unwieldy and less dependable.  Moreover, due to the lack of connections, feeders and circulators are critical.  Given that we cannot even fund the poor systems we have now properly, there is the question of funding them later when the plan gets built and the entire bus system has to be redone in all the counties to feed into it.  If people can’t get to this route quickly, they won’t use it.  (And if you have park and ride without garages, you just have large surface lots around stations, which goes to #5.)

4.) In addition to #3, there is an inherent problem with basing a system on the interstate.  Even if the stations are nice, the interstate is inherently a hindrance to walkability and proper development around transit stops, one of the main features and benefits of a true transit system. While being in the interstate may be ok for the origination of some commuter trips with park and ride stations, it is not optimal for regular stops and main activity centers, especially since, aside from Westshore, the interstate does not actually run through them.

5.) This plan will create basically no incentive for transit oriented development (except maybe Westshore).  First, the design in the interstate does not naturally lead to transit oriented development.  Second, the lack of a fixed guideway or truly dedicated path aside from the stations will not lead to confidence in investors. This condition exacerbates #3. . .

We have also pointed out both BRT advocates and planners who have said similar things.  We have pointed out that there must be more to recommend the plan than the fact it is cheaper than alternatives.  And we have been waiting to hear what those positive attributes are.  Last week, per a Times article that was teased with the below picture of a compelling transit vision, the engineers spoke:

From the Times – click on picture for website

Proponents of a bus rapid transit system that would connect St. Petersburg, Tampa and Wesley Chapel pushed back Friday against recent criticism of the proposed plan.

The lead engineer told a group of regional leaders that they wanted to clear up a “misconception” and “concerns” about their plan to address Tampa Bay’s mind-numbing gridlock.

Go for it:

Critics’ main question: how much of this tri-county route actually puts buses in their own lane, separate from other vehicles?

It is an issue, though not the main question.  The issues all go together.  But, anyway:

That’s crucial because in order to qualify for federal funding — and Jacobs’ mandate was to find transit projects that could attract federal dollars — a BRT system has to have its own dedicated lane for at least 50-percent of the route.

That is important to keep in mind.  The study did not analyze current conditions and future projections to determine the best project or real needs.  It studied past studies to see what could get Federal money. As we said when the plan was unveiled:

So how did we get this plan?  If you watch the video of the presentation, the presenter says it plainly. He explains that to be competitive for Federal funds each trip generally needs to be $10 or so.  With real BRT or rail it would be higher, so they designed a plan to hit the $10 dollar target. (See @1:10-1:12 cost per trip; @1:14:20 explain why the cost is high; @1:15:30 fit project to the cost $10/trip competitive for federal program.)  We’ll assume that their figures are true.

First, what that means is that this plan is not the best plan or the plan the area really needs, it is just the idea the consultants think could get federal money fastest. Whether or not you think that is the criterion that should be used, that needs to be kept in mind.

Second, it leads to the question of why our area can only come up with a less-than-BRT plan while other areas can build real transit (BRT or rail) systems and still get Federal money (especially given that the Howard Frankland replacement is to be built by the State with room for transit).

Getting back to the engineers:

Pringle told politicians Friday that the 41-mile route would have its own lane for 20 miles. But in order to meet the federal funding threshold, future grant applications would focus on the 31-mile section connecting St. Petersburg to the University of South Florida.

By removing the 10-mile segment that stretches into Pasco, dedicated lanes would comprise about two-thirds of the 31-mile BRT route. Because the buses are traveling in the same lanes as regular traffic from USF to Wesley Chapel, Jacobs spokesman Kyle Parks said, they’re essentially functioning as an express bus route there, not BRT.

What would the 20 miles of dedicated bus lanes look like? That depends on the section of the route.

For nearly five miles from West Shore to Tampa, officials would build a new lane in the median of Interstate 275, which was widened after the interstate expansion to accommodate transit.

The other 15 or so miles would put the rapid buses on the interstate shoulder, from St. Petersburg to the Howard Frankland Bridge and then again from downtown Tampa to USF.

“They will be separated from all other traffic to allow those vehicles to bypass congestion,” Pringle said.

Regarding the last piece, yes and no.  Assuming no cars break down, no one swerves, there are no crashes, and no emergency vehicles are needed (things which never happen, of course), the buses will be running by themselves on the shoulder.  Otherwise, they won’t.  And when the buses get off the interstate to come as close as they come (which is not that close in most places) to activity centers, it is not clear that they will have their own lanes.  The Howard Frankland will not have dedicated lanes.  And the miles to Pasco that they ignore will not be dedicated lanes.

And then there is this:

Kemp and others, such as Hillsborough County Commissioner Les Miller and Tampa City Council member Mike Saurez, criticized the BRT plan earlier this week for relying on elevated stations instead of street-level stations, which they believe would be better able to attract development. Transit-oriented development has also been touted as a benefit of light rail.

Pringle said only two of the stations — one at West Shore Boulevard and another at Howard and Armenia Avenues — would be elevated. Those would use pedestrian overpasses, elevators and escalators to connect the platforms in the median of the interstate with the businesses, parking and other transportation options in the Westshore Business District.

So two elevated stations. How about the rest? One can assume a number of stations will be off the interstate and the buses will have to slow down and probably mix in traffic a bit to get off the interstate (or pay for expensive bus-only on/off ramps and street level right of way just for buses).  Even if the buses are going to use the inside shoulder of the interstate to avoid some traffic, if the stations are off the interstate, the buses will have to cross traffic (not BRT) or there must be large, expensive ramps over the interstate to the stations on surface roads, which solves neither the issue of accessibility from either side of the interstate nor the issue of transit oriented development patterns.  Moreover, some stations might be in the middle of the interstate, like on the stretch from downtown Tampa to Westshore.  Whether stations are in the air or under and overpass near the cross-street, you still have to deal with the interstate.

And whether the stations are on the interstate or off, riders still have to cross the interstate to get to the other side of the road (as opposed to BRT on arterials).  It is not just about street-level stations.  Where those stations are is important as well.  If they are in an activity center and/or on an arterial road makes a difference both to the rider(-ship) and in terms of development potential.

Almost nothing in the plan is really conducive to transit oriented development or growing ridership.  The problem of not putting the system near where people are active and keeping the buses moving rapidly remains.  And the issue of eating up walking/connection time getting around the interstate remains.  The reality is that the interstate route is used because it is cheaper and quick to build, not because it is effective or useful.  We understand that choice, but the issues remain.  (And it is definitely not “gold standard.”) Like we have said before: express buses are a complement to an urban mass transit system; they are not the core of one.

A better case still has to be made.


— St. Pete

Meanwhile, the St Pete City Council voiced an opinion on the proposal:

St. Petersburg City Council offered its unanimous support for the Regional Premium Transit Feasibility Plan to create a 41-mile bus rapid transit route from its city to Wesley Chapel through Tampa.

St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman also offered his approval during the Thursday meeting.

Council approved a resolution supporting the administration’s efforts to ensure the plan is incorporated into the region’s long-range transportation plan and the Florida Department of Transportation’s Tampa Bay Next plan and any other applicable measures needed to make the BRT plan a reality.

This is the reported reasoning:

Council members acknowledged the plan was not a remedy for the region’s transit woes but rather a necessary first step in providing multimodal access for residents and visitors.

“This is the 56th [transit] study,” said City Council member Darden Rice. “We have to be super pragmatic and, I think, recognize that this is an excellent starting point. It’s truly regional.”

The bus rapid transit route is estimated to cost about a tenth of what regional light rail would — about $450 million as opposed to $4 billion.

“Unless a private entity steps forward to write a check, it’s not going to happen,” Kriseman said.

Setting aside that it is not clear that this plan is in any way a first step (as opposed to the only step), basically the argument is still that it is cheaper than the alternative.  And it is regional.

It may be a useful part of an overall transit system, especially for St. Pete, which, like Wesley Chapel, is at the extreme end of the plan, and may get the BRT to the beach. (Though, as made clear from using Central for their beach BRT plan, using 4th St or MLK and maybe some of Roosevelt would be better than the interstate.) But express buses to the airport from downtown St. Pete could be running right now.

In other St. Pete news,

A proposed bus rapid transit route connecting downtown St. Petersburg to the Gulf beaches is in good position to receive federal funding, according to a Federal Transit Agency rating released Tuesday.

The FTA is proposing a budget of more than $1 billion for 2019 projects. The Central Avenue BRT project received the second highest possible rating on the administration’s five-point scale that officially qualifies the Central Avenue project for a federal grant. The ranking does not mean Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority is guaranteed a grant.

As you can see in the recommendation list, almost all the smaller project received the same “medium-high” ranking as the St. Pete plan, which, in contrast to the Regional Plan, at least is mostly in real dedicated on arterial roads. (See pg. 16 of the pdf)  Also, most of the larger, new start proposals received a “medium-high” score. (See pg 15 of the pdf)

The PSTA is seeking a New Starts grant through the FTA’s Capital Investments Grant Program for $20 million, which is about half the project’s estimated cost. The state and local governments would pay for the other half.

Hopefully, they will get Federal money.  However, given that price tag, even without Federal money, if it is a priority, something should be able to be worked out.


Downtown – Still No

There were new renderings for HRI’s disappointing proposal for the City parking lot across Florida from City Hall.  From URBN Tampa Bay:

From URBN Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

From URBN Tampa Bay – click on picture for Facebook page

While the quality of the renderings has increased somewhat, the quality of the project has not.  It is still a 17 story, bland building with limited street retail, and no design to speak of. Nothing really has changed.  We wish they had invested more in design and less in renderings, but they haven’t.

As it stands, and as it has stood for this whole process, this project is neither a signature project nor iconic.  Given the lack of street interaction, we do not think it is good enough for even a private lot in downtown.  It is certainly not worthy being built on a prime, publicly owned lot.  The City Council should reject the deal.  As we have noted before, supporting this project shows a lack of faith in Tampa’s future. We can do much better.


Downtown/Channel District – JW Marriott

We can definitely do much better, especially when this is also happening downtown, from URBN Tampa Bay:

Water Street Tampa’s JW Marriott project appears to have received design approval. The project is nearly through the building permit process as well and will be starting construction soon. The current lot has been fenced off and will no longer be used for its former use (parking for arena events).

We get that every project will not be a JW Marriott.  However, Water Street is setting the standard we should be shooting for in an RFP on public land.  In fact, settling only diminishes the value that Water Street is poised to bring.  And the contrast between the past (HRI) and the future (Water Street) could not be starker.  The question for the City is whether it wants the aberration to be the HRI proposal or Water Street.


Downtown – Encore, Maybe

Encore was always envisioned as having a mix of uses including housing, a grocery store, hotels, and offices.  The housing is there.  Now:

An “urban” grocery store and a major hotel chain could soon be in the works for the Encore public housing complex on the edge of downtown Tampa.

St. Petersburg firm J Square Developers has signed a $2.2 million contract to buy a parcel from the Tampa Housing Authority to build a midsized grocery store at Encore. The housing agency also has a California developer moving ahead with a $4.3 million deal to build a flagship boutique hotel.

The deals could mark a major step forward for the urban renewal project, which was planned as a walkable community but has struggled to entice surrounding development. About 1,000 people already live in Encore, many of whom are elderly and do not have their own transportation.

“(Encore) has established a diverse socioeconomic population that is now encouraging to retail and commercial interests,” said Housing Authority chief operating officer Leroy Moore.

Still, agency officials are staying cautious until the deals close. The contracts give both developers a 120-day inspection period.

Being cautious is a good strategy. A deal is not done until it is completely done. However, are there any details?

The contract with J Square does not disclose what grocery chain is involved.

Moore said the store would likely be 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, smaller than a full-sized grocery store. For example, the Publix store under construction in nearby Channelside will be about 37,000 square feet.

Local real estate experts have predicted that it could be a grocer that caters to lower-income shoppers, such as Lidl or Aldi.

That is fine with us.  However, that says nothing about the potential design, including parking.

As for the hotel:

The roughly 2-acre lot under contract for a hotel is on the northwest corner of Cass and Hank Ballard streets. It is one of two hotel sites in the Encore master plan.

Moore said he could not disclose the buyer but said the deal would bring a major hotel brand to Encore.

The contract lists CRMS LLC, a legal entity set up in California. State records show it shares an address with ICM USA, a subsidiary of the Maltauro Group, an Italian infrastructure and development firm.

The hotel would include some retail and would have about 200 rooms.

Same thing.

This is all encouraging news, but nothing has happened quite yet and, even if something does happen, the details will be important. We’ll just have to see.


Downtown – Jackson House

As you may remember, Encore is tangentially named after the historic Central Avenue neighborhood that was the main African-American center in Tampa and was bulldozed for the interstate and housing projects.  Nearby, is Jackson House, which, though in a state of disrepair, is actually historic.

Today, its doors are closed, but during the Jim Crow era of racial segregation, the Jackson Rooming House on E. Zack St. in downtown Tampa was a haven for all — specifically African Americans.

“This is a place where they would come to feel safe because they could not stay in the local hotels. They could not eat in the local restaurants,” said Penda King, secretary for the Jackson House Foundation.

As we said, it is in disrepair.

In 2017, the Jackson House Foundation worked with an engineering firm to stabilize the foundation but estimates it will need close to a million dollars to restore the building to its former glory. The goal is to make the Jackson House a museum and a place to hold youth education programs.

“We should remind people how it used to be, and this is what restoring this house would do,” King said.

Tampa has either outright destroyed or destroyed by neglect much of its history.  While historical markers are nice, real history is nicer.  You can find the Jackson House Foundation, including its donation link here.


Rays – Ybor

There was a big event last week that made official what was pretty much assumed for years – the Rays would like a stadium in Tampa, specifically at the north end of the Ybor Channel.

The Tampa Bay Rays decided where its future lies, and it’s in Tampa.

Rays principal owner Stuart Sternberg announced Friday that the team wants to build its next ballpark in Ybor City, the historic Latin neighborhood near downtown with baseball roots that go back a century.

If it comes to fruition — and it is still an “if” — within five years the Rays could leave St. Petersburg, the only home the team has known since its inaugural 1998 season.

“Ybor City is authentically Tampa Bay,” Sternberg said at a news conference at the Tampa Baseball Museum. “It represents the finest opportunity for Major League Baseball to thrive in this region for generations to come.

“This,” he said, “is where we want to be playing baseball.”

The idea of somewhere around the Ybor Channel being the favored site has been floating around for years (not necessarily the exact lot chosen, but the general area).  It has just taken years of machinations to get to the point where the discussions can really get underway.  We would be more excited except there is a long way to go and a number of questions.  And picking a place you like is the easy part (though it has not been that easy).  The real issue is money:

So far, there have not been substantive negotiations on how to pay for a stadium that could cost more than $700 million. Sternberg said the team would contribute “a good amount of money” toward a financing agreement, but declined to offer specifics. He has floated $150 million in the past.

Buckhorn committed that “we’re not going to put the burden on the taxpayers.” However, it could rely on growth in Ybor property tax collections spurred by the new ballpark.

Under the agreement with St. Petersburg, the Rays have until the end of the year to search for a new home. The Rays’ lease at Tropicana Field expires in 2027. If the Rays leave before the end of 2022, it owes the city $3 million a year for the remainder of the lease. After that, the fee drops to $2 million a year.

Local businessman Charles Sykes and lawyer Ron Christaldi unveiled another major piece of the financial equation Friday: A campaign to gin up corporate support for the team’s relocation. Dubbed “Tampa Bay Rays 2020,” the goal is to guarantee sponsorships and ticket sales and convince MLB that a team can thrive here.

On corporate support, more specifically:

“Two thirds of the tickets should be coming from the business community,” Sykes said.

That’s not happening at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg. The Rays are contractually obligated to play there through 2027.

Right now, it is about half of that.  And that is a major challenge.  But we’ll just have to see what happens on that.

As for what the stadium might look like:

But they have what seems to be an unusual inspiration — Romanian artist Constantin Brancusi’s marble sculpture Bird in Space.

“That’s been our guiding design for the stadium,” principal owner Stuart Sternberg said at the team Fan Fest on Saturday.

What? How?

Sternberg said they are looking for an “ultra modern” design to make it a “minimalist, iconic, porous facility.”

Hopefully not too porous, especially in the summer.

“We’re going to continue to push the designers really hard,” Sternberg said the day after announcing the Ybor project was the team’s choice for a new home. “If the stadium is done correctly, it’s going to be iconic yet you won’t even know it’s there.”

Though Sternberg allowed that they will incorporate some elements of the historic Ybor neighborhood, including the historic bricks, it seems clear the Rays will be otherwise bucking tradition.

Given advancements in technology, there also could be discussions about transparent walls (such as in Minnesota’s football stadium) and even a roof, though Sternberg said they haven’t gotten that far yet.

“There’s going to be stuff that’s never been seen before, I know that,” Sternberg said. “Whatever’s been done, we can do, and a lot more.”

That all sounds positive, though we definitely would like a retractable roof (yes, we get that it costs more, but it would be nice).  Of course, what, if anything, gets built is probably also connected to financing.  In other words, there is a lot more waiting, but at least there seems to be good design intent. We know the process will still be messy and could fall apart, but we are cautiously optimistic.


Downtown – River Focus

For basically all his term, the Mayor has said his focus is on the river.  He has pushed all sorts of project in and around it. This week, we learned about a different kind of focus on the river.

Parking at the David A. Straz Jr. Center for the Performing Arts has been a nightmare for years, even delaying show starts. But a proposal to alleviate the crunch isn’t getting a standing ovation at City Hall just yet.

The Straz wants to remove a landscaped berm on the north side of West Tyler Street to expand its arrival plaza. That would create an undetermined amount of parking and increase capacity for the center’s valet service, which accounts for about 10 percent of its traffic, said Lorrin Shepard, the Straz’s chief operating officer.

The Straz’s proposal, though, conflicts with the city’s existing waterfront zoning regulations. To allow the expansion of the plaza, the City Council would have to approve an ordinance change.

That’s something city officials are still considering.

This is the area in question.

While we understand the Straz has a parking issue, we agree with the URBN Tampa Bay:

Nope, this is not a “unique circumstance.” We need other modes o[f] transportation to get to the Straz instead.

Having a parking issues downtown is not unique.  And it is certainly not unique enough to put parking on the waterfront. We get that the Straz has well-connected supporters, but either the river is the focus of redevelopment or it isn’t. (And the other question is how putting parking there would fit in with the Straz’s previously mooted master plan.  See “Downtown – More Straz”)

What we really need is for everyone to recognize the transportation issues downtown and get to work with a more holistic solution.


Transportation – Keep Moving, Keep Growing

In the week that the airport’s new rental car facility and SkyConnect opened, we got a couple of new flight announcements:

Frontier Airlines announced Thursday that Tampa International Airport will be one of 14 new destinations the low-fare carrier will begin service to from Austin, Texas starting in April.

Thursday and Sunday flights between Austin and Tampa are scheduled to start April 8.

Which is good.  And

Starting Aug. 7, Southwest Airlines will begin daily nonstop service between Tampa International Airport and Los Angeles.

A Southwest Boeing 737-700 will fly the route once a day, Tampa International Airport officials said Thursday. That will make Southwest the third airline at TIA to offer service to Los Angeles, which is Tampa International’s 13th largest market. Delta Air Lines already flies there, carrying more than 870 passengers a day. Spirit Airlines plans to launch service there in April and is expected to cater to budget-conscious leisure travelers.

Which is even better. The West Coast push by the airport really seems to be gaining momentum, which is great.  We look forward to more announcements, including, hopefully, more international service.


Economic Development – Where the Millennials Are

There is a lot of talk about attracting Millennials to this area.  So let’s look at how that is going from a recent Brookings study.

Among metropolitan areas, the 15 with the highest shares of millennials are all in the fast-growing South and West, such as Austin, San Diego, and Los Angeles. The lowest millennial shares tend to be in Florida, such as Tampa and Miami, in the Northeast, such as Pittsburgh, and in the Midwest, such as Cleveland and Detroit.

The top 10 cities are all over 26%, while the Tampa Bay area is around 21.2%. (Tied with Scranton and Cleveland and just behind Pittsburgh.  See pg 18 of this pdf)  Of course, that is better than the Sarasota-Bradenton 15.9%.  You can find more information here.  Notably, the highest growth cities include Orlando, Ft. Myers, and Sarasota-Bradenton. (pg 16 of the pdf) Unfortunately, the report does not tell us what our growth rate is.


Meanwhile, In the Rest of the State

This week, Amgen opened a shared service center in Tampa, bring a good number of jobs, which is a good thing.  However, while Amgen is a biotech firm, the jobs, though pretty well-paying, are not biotech jobs.  They are essentially back office jobs.  At the same time:

Defense giant Lockheed Martin broke ground Wednesday on a 255,000-square-foot Orlando facility that will create space for up to 1,000 workers.

The company plans to hire about 1,800 nationwide during the next two years. About 500 of those new jobs will be created here, with those positions paying an average salary of $87,000.

The new research and development facility, set to open in 2019 and sitting just south of the intersection of Sand Lake and Kirkman roads, will host work that could make its way into the U.S. military’s next nuclear missile.

While we are all for getting shared services centers, we would really like some R&D facilities, too.  R&D is where the spin-offs and clusters are formed.  To really move to the next level economically, we need it.


List of the Week

Our list this week is magnifymoney.com’s list of best and worst places in terms of a balanced lifestyle.   So how did they get the list?

We looked at the following (full methodology below):

(as noted, the full methodology is found by scrolling down on their webpage).

Coming in best is Grand Rapids, followed by Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, Raleigh, Kansas City, Columbus (OH), Portland (OR), Virginia Beach, Cincinnati, and Harrisburg (PA).

Coming in worst was New York, followed by Miami, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Tampa (helpfully, they included the “Fla.”), Detroit, New Orleans, Houston, Memphis, and Chicago.  So what do they say about us?

Another Florida city in the bottom five, Tampa’s biggest flaw is the ratio of hours worked to income earned (ranked 45th). Tampa doesn’t rank that low elsewhere, but it doesn’t rank high in anything, either; its top showing is a rank of 31 in the percentage of people who get at least seven hours of sleep a night. Average commutes clock in over 27 minutes (35th), and only half the population are reported to be in good or excellent health (32nd). The city ranks even lower for the prices of goods and services (40th) and the percentage of income that goes toward housing (41st).

That is not saying anything we don’t already know about this area (except that people sleep a lot here). What you think of the rest of the list is totally up to you.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: