Who is the Bare Chest Bandit? Man or Myth...?

Corporate Personhood Must Die Part 2, Death to Clear Channel!
posted Aug 3, 2010
tacomic, clear channel, blight, compromise, billboard, antispam, spammers
Sizes:   web  |  email  |  print

<< >>
Do you like junkmail?  Do you like annoying flash/video pop ups/under ads? Do you like telemarketers calling right when you sit down to eat? No. You hate spam; like all sane Americans hate ALL spam. You toss that shit in the recycle or use it to light your charcoal barbecue without even opening it.  If like me you find shrill, modern-day advertisement clutter revolting why would you in your right mind accept digital billboards into your precious urban human habitat?  Yet, the american hatred of spam is perhaps the single greatest unifying and under utilized tools of all time. So let's tap into that rage, together!   Tell your city council representative that you will accept no Clear Channel compromise. Tell them that constitutions matter in respect to WE THE PEOPLE, not WE THE CORPORATION.

 Find out how you too can support The Neo-urban Monkeywrench Gang!

Tacoma Urbanist ponders Clear Channel Compromise

Previously on The Tacomic:

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 1:45am
and who can forget this!

RR's Psychic ATTACK!

CLAW Zine 002back

by fredo on 8/3/2010 @ 6:35am
"Yet, the american hatred of spam is perhaps the single greatest unifying and under utilized tools of all time" RR

RR, I recently conducted a survey on feedtacoma attempting to solicit evaluations on various city council matters. On the matter of digital billboards I got 1 BAD and 1 GOOD and BAD response. That would have to be considered a pretty lukewarm rebuke of the city council. Maybe Tacomans like their city to look like a piece of junk mail.

Here's an idea for a future tacomic.

The student prince from the recently damaged Heidelberg ghost sign begins appearing on the new digital billboards. But in the course of the message his face melts away like in the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 9:12am
100% Random Sampling of comments from mainstream websites with really poor archive/search-ability for the single purpose of capturing the Tacoma zeitgeist...


samanthamarten wrote on 08/01/2010 12:22:33 PM:
I am not going as far as "public flogging". However, it certainly does seem that the mayor and council are a little short when it comes to grasping basic administrative law applications. Hey Anderson rules!


PumainTacoma wrote on 08/01/2010 02:16:46 PM:
"And councils go along because they are intimidated by lawyers and would prefer not to have a process that allows residents to beat up on them for their decision."

Move to Russia then!!!!! These council members are cowards all of them. They hide behind their dias and can't face the music of their constituents those that pay the taxes and their over inflated salaries. If they can't do their job in public and face the music, then move over. Time to clean house.


Neo says: July 28, 2010 at 11:46 am
What? As if giant billboards were the only channel they had available. There are lots of alternatives. Their first amendment ("free speech") rights should not qualify over all modes of communication availabe. When are we going to see that first civil suit from the distracted driver who crashed while reading their "protected" speech. And by the way, if I'm paying someone to disseminate my message; how the heck is that "free speech". We should be able to legislate against this type of intrusion into our space. Was that the 9th circuit again?


JeffTacoma says: July 28, 2010 at 12:08 pm
So, central Tacoma gets 10 ugly, annoying and light up the night billboards, which will make the city look like a casino at night! This is a good deal? This is stupid. Turn the deal down, and keep the lawsuit going to get rid of them all!


summit98446 says: July 28, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Maybe these knuckleheads blowing things up around town could focus their enthusiasm on billboards.


footballscaa says: July 28, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Evidently talking and texting on a cell phone is distracting, but giant glowing signs on side of the road are not? City council = Money grubbing hypocrites.


troublemaker says: July 28, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Please publish a map of the locations of the electronic billboards in the Central Neighborhood so we can see what part of the city's neighborhoods are NOT going to be protected by this "settlement" well as the locations of the billboards that will be removed to "protect" the rest of the City. Why should the Central Neighborhood be penalized so that the rest of the City can be "protected?" "For every neighborhood that prospers, there is another neighborhood nearby that is paying the price for that prosperity." Unbelievable.


Whatever1214 says: July 28, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Now all Clear Channel needs to do is work with the schools to make sure we have a population that can read the billboards.


fatuous says: July 28, 2010 at 3:26 pm

"City council = Money grubbing hypocrites." Would they had won a lawsuit? Remember the Bush Supreme Court gave business entities a freedom of speech green light.


scottsch111 says: July 28, 2010 at 4:17 pm
How this newspaper, with paid employees, can fail to do what our local bloggers have done and post the actual documents is beyond me. You can see them here: tacomanewsvolcanotribuneweeklyreporterin...

That document includes a listing of addresses of billboards to be removed, and a map showing where the digital versions will go, although it is one poor map. No street labels?!

My biggest concern is pointed out on that map. It says that these are the locations for the FIRST 10 digital billboards. Uh, what?!


thurber says: July 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Watch the campaign contributions flow now, especially to Fey.


summit98446 says: July 28, 2010 at 7:26 pm
From a look at the proposed billboard map, the agreement appears to be both environmentally racist & classist.


DrWernerKlopek says:July 28, 2010 at 8:57 pm
When the only one standing up for the city of Tacoma is a card carrying member of CLAW, president of The Traveller Fan Club, part time political satirist and street artist, well that is just plain sad. There should at least be more people out there to defend Tacoma against the evils of Wall Street, their media Clear Channel, and paid off members of the city council.


NineInchNachosII says: July 29, 2010 at 8:52 am
Look on the bright side! Central Tacoma (my home) is about to get a crap load of 20 foot wide screen televisions with no off switches! Sure we could have taken Clear Channel to the cleaners like other "hippie" cities and used the over 25 million dollars in fines ( $2300 a day since 2007) to fill pot holes, keep libraries open and stuff... but I think our council was spooked by being sued and the whole supreme court decision that soulless abstractions like trans-national corporations are people too baloney or whatever. Do you think the rich people in Gig Harbor would compromise on this crap? NO they would not. BABA BOOEY!


AreYouHighOrWhat wrote on 07/30/2010 08:39:17 AM:
Dbreneman: It's funny how many people here who hate Clear Channel are so eager to deny them their Constitutional rights.

No it's the hypocrisy that's funny! Clear Channel has trampled the rights of free speech (see Howard Stern) all over America, but are happy to go to court to protect theirs, hysterically just deserts would have them barred from operating anywhere in America for their blatent double standards of operation. You trying to defend that behavior is a few notches below them on the scale of skeeziness, I suspect you have some sort of financial interest in the outcome, or just don't like America and the basic principles of fairness and equality we cherish. They denied free speech rights to many Americans, and racially profile entire neighborhoods to find their target demographics for advertising, AND I'M THE HATER? GET A CLUE!


papasan wrote on 07/29/2010 10:19:48 PM:
I find it very interesting that two of the Council Members that have accepted this "Agreement" without public comment or input, are also responsible for the future demolition of Titlow Pool with little/NO public debate. They won't be happy until they have proven that they are SOOO business friendly that they will give away the entire City to business in spite of opposition from the citizens.
@ dbreneman. Imagine an I-5 type billboard. Then talk about their "rights" to pollute.I hope that they put one of these "desk top" billboards so that it flashes 24/7/365 right into your bedroom window. Don't worry though. It will just be the lower classes that are affected.


dbreneman wrote on 07/29/2010 09:14:39 PM:
It's funny how many people here who hate Clear Channel are so eager to deny them their Constitutional rights. The reason we have the Constitution is to protect those who are unpopular. Popular people or organizations don't need protection, do they?


t990272320 wrote on 07/29/2010 07:17:52 PM:
Clear Channel doesn't care about scenery, they just want you to look at signs. I don't like Clear Channel. I don't like advertisements. I like to look at the mountains and trees, not Clear Channel's filthy billboard campaigns. I'm glad that Clear Channel will have to remove some of their ugly billboards, and deeply saddened that all of the technology will be wasted on more digital advertisements.

Tacoma needs to keep a close eye on this nasty company.


thurber wrote on 07/29/2010 05:29:40 PM:
This a multi-million dollar gift to Clearchannel. All those boards have been illegal under city law, they had the time to amortize (pay for the costs & profit) for years, now the council gives them the boards free. Does the council even know the size of the gift? The cash flow from the boards? That it locks in the zoning laws forever? That no neighborhood will ever get a billboard removed now becasue they will have to pay "fair market value"?

Isn't great that the council always agrees on everything? With no debate, everything was desided in secret and not on the agenda, here are some conclusions:

1. Stickland will do whatever Eric Anderson will tell her to do.

2. Fey and Ryan Meow are abstract enviromentalists for fish, trees, but not for people livng here and now. Watch for "Jake the Snake" to be collecting campaign contributions now from industry lobbyists and lawyers.

3. David Bowie is not for good design at all, and, of cource may have received prior contracts here, too, but forgot to tell anyone.

4. Who is telling Marty Campbell that they want to stop the lawsuit and keep the boards?

5. Lauren Walker may have sought the concentration in her district, or what's more scary, is clueless, or is so weak that she can't help it.

6. R. R. Anderson is the only person on the ball and who stands up for us citizens.


speakout wrote on 07/29/2010 03:01:32 PM:
There is a tiny little provision in the law that prohibits Ex Post Facto laws, like this supposed ban on signs, I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned. Another thing not mentioned, all those existing billboard signs are set on property that is rented/leased from the private owners of the land or buildings, which is not Clear Channel, so why no mention of the economic impact from removing all the existing billboards on those people. But when does a politician ever care about the ordinary People, except right before an election, and of course they instantly forget us all again when the polls close..


tck512 wrote on 07/29/2010 12:39:49 PM:
You can now expect all the OTHER advertising concerns that removed their billboards in response to the 2007 ban will be coming back with their own 'digital' versions. Pretty soon it will be wall-to-wall bill boards again. Somewhere in the country there must have been someone with enough intelligence to write a code that would eliminate these eyesores that our inept city council can copy and enact. Or is there too much incentive for them NOT to??


NineInchNachosII wrote on 07/29/2010 11:41:18 AM:
is interesting that the same council that can have a moment of silence for a slain code enforcement officer can turn around and compromise the city codes she fought to enforce. Meanwhile the pocket park downtown—as of this writing overshadowed by BUY ALCOHOL! CLEAR CHANNEL billboards—that is dedicated to city employees killed in action (Officer Larry Frost Memorial Park) has a fountain lying in ruin… you’d think after the Lakewood cop murders there would be a renewed interest in maintaining this little memorial park for god sakes. No, we need to protect the “freedom of speech” for the non-humans! People need to be told to buy hard liquor! or gorge themselves on McBurgers and gasoline. WTF?


AreYouHighOrWhat wrote on 07/29/2010 10:25:02 AM:
Not me: Actually it's you not comprehending! TCC just got into bed with Clear Channel, a subsidiary of the Bush agenda, enjoy your oppression. ;o)


PumainTacoma wrote on 07/29/2010 09:40:48 AM:
If you restrict permanent signs then why not the mobile signs on I-5 on trucks or the buses. I see mobile signs along I-5 in the summer months all over. If the test is "time, place and manner" of the communication (free speech) which causes harm, then it causes harm regardless of the zip code. The blinking digital billboard in Fife is larger in scale, but is it as dangerous as the guy driving the mobile billboard on I-5 which displays a new advertisement every minute. If you focus on the speech aspect you lose. The architectural scale and size is a more arguable response. Clubs, fire houses and city buildings have their own digital signs that are obnoxious there just not 100 ft. in the sky.


Thinkn_do wrote on 07/29/2010 09:19:47 AM:
All BILLBOARDS should be banned Nationwide! They are a Danger to drivers and are no different especially when they are digital changing image type; than a giant TV on the side of the road. What in the WORLD is wrong with our Government that they allow this Monstrous garbage to pollute and endanger our lives!! Cell phones are no more or less dangerous than these new sign especially!


AreYouHighOrWhat wrote on 07/29/2010 09:19:28 AM:
Well I saw this yesterday and had to mull it over, I wasn't sure exactly what bothered me, but then I remembered Howard Stern. During the Bush years Clear Channel was an oppressive tool of the administration, and exerted influence with the FCC to try and have little Howie taken off the air (and fined) for exercising his right to free speech. Clear Channel sucks, they suck hard, and they suck the life out of optimistic Americans; but when they want free speech they run to court. Now why is Mother Strickland willing to take their money? Seems like Crin' Ryan Mello should have a problem with this too, Clear Channel and "Racial Profiling" go together like pancakes and syrup. So in the end, a truckload of cash offsets "doing the right thing", and the Tacoma City Council gets to play with a pile of someone elses money......AGAIN!

That's three Mother Strickland! Three times in less than a year that you've totally disappointed me and made my outlook for the future even bleaker. Is it any wonder I'm still boycotting Tacoma?


InsideJob wrote on 07/29/2010 08:43:22 AM:
There are things that constitute an undue hazard and the reason that these signs are not allowed is exactly because the risk of having them outweighs any benefit they provide to the society as a whole. Of course, like many other things that go on on the reservation, the Tribe allows them and the impacts (my neighbor's front lawn full of Junipers and other evergreens went up in smoke thanks to fireworks that were sold on the reservation. It is ony because of quick fire response that his home was not burned down with him in it) the rest of the community are conducted there.


dbreneman wrote on 07/29/2010 07:28:30 AM:
An entity self styled as "InsideJob" writes of "...a friend who was rear ended on I-5 after he slowed down behind a driver who hit the brakes when the blue lights from the billboard made them think a Patrol car was behind them with blue lights flashing."

So the answer is to ban everything that makes an idiot do anything stupid? It can't be done. Idiots are very resourceful in their stupidity.


rockrabbit wrote on 07/29/2010 07:27:43 AM:
I agree that the blinding billboards on I-5 need to to go. They're major safety hazards, and tacky ones at that.


fantum wrote on 07/29/2010 07:25:47 AM:
A few things are disconcerting about this agreement. One is a provision in Para 7 that allows Clear Channel to opt out of it!
"Clear Channel's option to execute this agreement, or to leave the Agreement unexecuted, shall be within Clear Channel's sole discretion. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require Chear Channel to execute this agreement."

Also, why is the City not putting a special fee on these new billboards? Profites for digital billboards are much higher than the regular ones so a revenue stream should apply and go directly to a fund for the neighborhoods impacted.


royboy361 wrote on 07/29/2010 07:22:51 AM:
Personally I like the idea. If it can get rid of the forest of billboard along city streets that's ok with me.


weylandduir wrote on 07/29/2010 07:16:47 AM:
So cities and its citizens don't have a right to determine if they want billboards in their neighborhoods? Why do corporations have more rights than the rest of us?


InsideJob wrote on 07/29/2010 06:59:39 AM:
They constitute a traffic hazard and should be outlawed including the ones on "indian" land. I have a friend who was rear ended on I-5 after he slowed down behind a driver who hit the brakes when the blue lights from the billboard made them think a Patrol car was behind them with blue lights flashing.


reformedliberal wrote on 07/29/2010 06:21:43 AM:
Those "loud, Vegas-style billboards" along I-5 need to go, too. If I can't use my Blackberry while I'm driving, wth should the billboards be allowed to show me things I'm supposed to read while driving?


skippythedog wrote on 07/29/2010 05:11:40 AM:
these things are a hazard....blinding to drivers at night.

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 10:57am
Clear Channel or No Clear Channel?

Sound Transit vs. Pierce Transit

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 12:02pm
from captiveyak mail box!

"But whether or not people think digital billboards are bad, or that the swap is a good deal, everyone ought to be concerned about the apparently subversion of public process. Since you seem familiar with what’s going on here in L.A., you probably know that the same thing happened here in 2006, when the city council approved—without any public debate—a lawsuit settlement with Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor that would have allowed them to convert 840 billboards to digital. A smaller billboard company then sued the city, and last fall a judge overturned the settlement. It’s now in the Appeals Court, but most legal observers believe that the judgment will be upheld, because there’s repeated legal precedent that cities have to follow established procedures—notification, hearings, etc.—before making these kind of decisions. "

read the whole thing! Highly interesting...

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 12:02pm
Hey Fredo, You should sue

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 12:51pm
from my inbox!

- - -

Thanks for the message. I have been following events in Tacoma, and actually read the Clear Channel lawsuit. You can't predict what the courts will do, but that lawsuit made the same arguments that have been rejected time and time again, and I'm sorry to hear the city decided to settle. But that's the strategy of Clear Channel and other big billboard companies, to keep pushing lawsuits until cities cave in and give them what they want. And what they want everywhere are digital billboards, because these are big moneymakers, far more lucrative than conventional billboards. So an important question to ask when billboard companies propose these deals is: How much money did those conventional billboards make, and how much will the digital billboards make? The digital billboards also consume far more energy than conventional billboards, and can cause light trespass if they're near residential neighborhoods.

But it sounds like it's a done deal, unless somebody sues to stop it.

Dennis Hathaway
President, Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight
2700 Military Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90064

Defend Our Public Spaces, Protect Our Visual Environment

by fredo on 8/3/2010 @ 2:38pm
"Hey Fredo, You should sue" RR

clearly that's the message. If you want your way with the city just threaten to sue, then the city capitulates and gives you whatever you want.

Where is our city leadership on these matters?

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 3:17pm
Ever since, several council members have been reluctant to speak with me about the settlement -- either by not returning my calls, offering no comment for the record, or, speaking very carefully and/or generally about the issue (In general, some members have told me the settlement is a good deal that will take most billboards off the street and largely protect the residential atmosphere of most neighborhoods, plus end an ongoing and costly lawsuit).

Read more:

by fredo on 8/3/2010 @ 3:32pm
Nachos, this is not good for the city. We know it intuitively. The deal was slipped in as a last minute agenda item. The mayor should be ashamed of herself for allowing this to happen.

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 3:49pm
what about Lauren Walker? these new billboards are being deposited in her district?

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 3:50pm
Joe Lonergan, professional TNT ad salesman obviously could care less.

by fredo on 8/3/2010 @ 4:07pm
Elected council members should be representing their districts or city as a whole, not a corporation involved in a dispute with the city. Lauren Walker told us before her election that she had good "listening skills." Who is she listening to? Joe Lonergan can usually be counted on for good judgement. Don't know what happened here. But in 20 years I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 were Clear Channel district managers.

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 4:24pm
What would Tom Stenger do?

by Jesse on 8/3/2010 @ 5:20pm
"The deal was slipped in as a last minute agenda item. The mayor should be ashamed of herself for allowing this to happen." -- Fredo

So it was a secret and those only exist because we are ashamed of what they are.

by jenyum on 8/3/2010 @ 9:28pm
Driving down 6th Ave last night I noticed a number of glaring digital signs, near UPS. Are those new? Can we just have those wherever we want now, too? I thought you needed a permit here to even put up a sign in front of your business?

One of them blasted a big "Part of NO" and then "Socialism!!" and I almost ran into the former home of Origin 23 degrees.

by jenyum on 8/3/2010 @ 9:32pm
I want to believe (though I have no solid basis for it) that they got some bad legal advice. You could look at Citizens United and think you can't have an ordinance like Tacoma's anymore, except you can. Although Corporations are the New People and they have first amendment rights, even the Old People can have limits placed on speech for commercial purposes.

Or maybe they just couldn't afford to keep paying lawyers to work on this. Either way, it's a crime* they didn't at least hold out for some money in the settlement.

*figuratively, not legally.

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 10:05pm
can't we just get really cheap lawyers? the city is right... clear channel is wrong.. you suck city council

by NineInchNachos on 8/3/2010 @ 10:05pm
the terrorists have won

by captiveyak on 8/4/2010 @ 7:30am
ClearChannel is an amazing company. It's success is living proof that the Bible's prophecies regarding the success of the Anti-Christ are not far-fetched.

This is a company that is almost univerally hated. Everyone has a story about ClearChannel gobbling up their favorite local radio station, or driving their small media business out of its market, or censoring their ad, chilling their favorite radio show, or supporting some Puritanistic cause in their community. Musicians complain about the death of regional radio/musical cultures due to the "ClearChannelization" of the disk-jockeying profession. Federal laws have been written that essentially ONLY affect ClearChannel and effectively solidify their strengthening grasp on traditional mass media.

Yet they keep winning -- even with their predictable plan of attack. As our friend at banbillboardblight said, cities are making some incorrect assumptions before they roll over. But one has to sympathize on a certain level -- it seems state or federal government should be taking notice of this disturbing trend of coroporate intimidation. Something CLEARLY needs to be done on a much bigger level.

They have deep pockets, a desireable product (for advertisers) and a big megaphone. Their media monopoly is frightening and one of the worst things in this country that we CAN'T blame on our friend W.

by fredo on 8/4/2010 @ 7:54am
Nice summary captiveyak. Hard to tell if we should be more upset with Clear Channel or our own elected officials. The public deserves to hear the audio recording of the special session which produced the "settlement" between the parties.

Not a single word of support for our neighborhoods, our values, our wonderful complete streets from the council members elected to serve us. Astonishing.

by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2010 @ 8:14am
they see removal of static billboard blight in compromise as the path of least resistance. We should change the name 'Tacoma City Council' to 'FRANCE'

by fredo on 8/4/2010 @ 8:27am
I just noticed that the barechest bandit is wearing an shipping box. Any comment intended?

by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2010 @ 8:53am
go local? ha ha was waiting for somebody to notice that.


Unknown Company's &quot;Break Out of the Norm&quot; Aggressive Urban Blight Campaign

by tommyllew on 8/4/2010 @ 11:26am
Am I the only one to get the "Flaming Carrot" reference? Ut!

by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2010 @ 11:48am
oh man... I did that for izenmania.
Am very impressed Tom.

by NineInchNachos on 8/4/2010 @ 12:30pm
also tried to use the amazon box mask as a tribute to the Chainsaw Vigilante, a very fine comic book character from the original TICK comic book series (also inspired by Flaming Carrot comix)


by NineInchNachos on 8/9/2010 @ 2:26pm
astonishment from our friends in SEATTLE!

Clear channel was foiled mid plot to destroy Seattle's skyline...

"Ponder this for a minute. Right now our skyline — which we all own collectively, which is internationally, instantly recognizable, which is composed of historic and contemporary architecture, which is more than the sum of its parts — is stunningly gorgeous. Breathtaking. A blend of art, technology, engineering, and building craft. Clean, pristine, unsullied by crass commercialism. Just waiting to be branded. Marked by corporate entities merely because they are BIG. And vocal. And can wield influence in various forms. ..."

by JeremyGregorySucks on 9/20/2010 @ 6:49am
Schizophrenic haters, hahahahaaaaaa!
I love it!

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 8:31am
artist Jeremy Gregory goes on the ATTACK!

(the only good billboard is a dismantled billboard)

by marumaruyopparai on 9/20/2010 @ 8:56am
So poking fun at billboards AND a slight homage to RR chalkart/Tacomic? Go Gregory.

by The Jinxmedic on 9/20/2010 @ 9:05am
Well done, Mr. Gregory!

by JeremyGregorySucks on 9/20/2010 @ 11:39am
Schizophrenic haters, hahahahaaaaaa!
I love it!

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 11:42am
hey man, you can criticize people's art and still enjoy it.

Welcome to the interweb!

by JeremyGregorySucks on 9/20/2010 @ 11:53am
Schizophrenic haters, hahahahaaaaaa!
I love it!

by NineInchNachos on 9/20/2010 @ 12:00pm

by cisserosmiley on 2/23/2011 @ 10:48pm
map of digitals
clearchannel vid

by NineInchNachos on 2/23/2011 @ 11:11pm
I read in the Tribune about a crazy person in the mall who punched a flat screen TV with his fist which ruined the screen. Wondering if a pumpkin shot from an air cannon or catapult would have the same effect on these nightmare billboards?

by NineInchNachos on 2/24/2011 @ 7:54am

by Mofo from the Hood on 2/24/2011 @ 8:18am
Admirable effort to face the City Council and audience. Most people were probably wondering if you were a friend, a foe, or a cartoonist.

by fredo on 2/24/2011 @ 10:38am
comment removed by moderator

by The Jinxmedic on 2/24/2011 @ 10:54am
"comment removed by moderator"

Another Tacoma motto!