Sacramento Report

Regulatory Bills Affecting New and Existing Housing

Print
PDF

On April 5 your Association leadership joined with leaders of other independent California NAA affiliates to meet with their legislators in Sacramento to discuss several important bills of special interest to owners and managers of residential rental housing. The largely unspoken underlying theme, of course, is what legislative action may be taken to address the obvious and growing California “housing crisis”—too few homes for too many people with too few private or public resources to address current needs as well as a gigantic backlog of unmet need. The repeal of the redevelopment law—both cursed and praised—left a huge billion dollar hole in tax pro ceeds dedicated to construct and improve low and moderate income housing. The disappearance of that sustainable source of funding has fostered a number of proposals for replacement, some modest and others bold. It also has generated a call from some quarters for more and severe regulation of ren tal housing. It is with that backdrop that your leader ship approached this year’s Lobby Day in Sacramento.

Legislators and their staff members were very cordial in making limited time available to address these important issues both in generality and specificity. We grouped to oppose several regulatory bills affecting both new and existing housing in juxtaposition with funding measures deserving of support notwithstanding their effect on taxes—a tough sell! As one might expect, we received mixed signals on the tax issue but largely favorable reactions on bills that we opposed.

At the top of bills to oppose was AB 1506 (Bloom), which would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act, a significant 22-year old housing measure that excluded from rent control single-family homes and all developments built after 1995 (or earlier if a rent control ordinance exempted new construction from a specific point in time), while giving owners of existing housing stock in rent controlled communities the right to establish initial and subsequent rental rates. That 1995 Act was approved by the Legislature to put the brakes on local governments’ overreaching and strict rent control ordinances that were spreading throughout the State and negatively impacting the economy and the housing industry. Its repeal would usher in a new wave of local ordinances adopting the strictest forms of price and rent controls. The result would be catastrophic.

Following a similar regulatory trend are measures that would require inclusionary housing for moderate, low and very low income levels in all new develop ments. These include in varying degrees of specificity and detail: AB 1505 (Bloom), AB 915 (Ting) and SB 277 (Bradford). In many respects, the in clusionary housing requirements imposed on new construction are more onerous than a typical rent control ordinance because they require deed restricted occupancies based on income for up to 55 years or more.

In total, the regulatory approach to the housing shortage by keeping rental rates artificially below market necessarily reduces the income stream for improvements, maintenance and repair of existing units while, at the same time, negatively affecting the investment and development of much needed rental housing.

Money, money, money. Where to get the funds necessary to address all of California’s many needs? State funding priorities are like shifting sands in the desert.

Thanks to Proposition 98 and the education community, K-12 education funding takes the lion’s share right off the top of each year’s state budget. Everything else scrambles for second- or third-fiddle with barely more than a half of a loaf left. At this writing, the Senate is poised to vote and send to the Assembly a multi-billion dollar transportation mea sure to “fix” degraded highways and roadways through out the State. It constitutes a huge funding boost on top of an already very expensive State Department of Transportation. Where does housing fit in?

Without question, California needs more housing.

According to a recent report from the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee, California has a housing shortage—we simply are not building enough homes to keep up with the high demand. This is particularly true for low-income rental units while middle-income households are priced out of buying homes. Over regulation, high development and permitting costs and a lack of consistent public funding have contributed to California’s housing shortage.

SB 3 and ACA 11 will help address California’s housing problems.

SB 3 (Beall) would authorize issuance of bonds in the amount of $3 billion to finance various existing housing programs. Bonds add more debt and are costly one-time affairs, not long-term sustainable, but certainly satisfy a near-term need.

ACA 11 (Caballero) would impose a 0.25 percent tax on all retailers to be placed in a newly created “California Middle Class Affordable Housing and Homeless Shelter Account” in the State General Fund for the support of local and state programs that assist in the development or acquisition of housing.

We support these bills not only because their passage will lead to a much needed boon in housing development, but also because these bills focus on building homes through bond and sales tax money instead of targeting the rental housing industry for regulation such as rent control and just cause for tenancy.

The State must continue to address the housing shortage problem through investing in affordable home development and rehabilitation, rental and homeownership assistance and community development. Targeting our industry with more regulations and eliminating rental property owner rights and protections such as under the Costa-Hawkins Act and Ellis Act will serve to drive up costs, force rental property owners out of business and reduce incentives to build, maintain and invest in more badly needed housing.

Our industry representatives did an outstanding job presenting compelling reasons to oppose AB 1506 and AB 1505 (Bloom), AB 915 (Ting) and SB 277 (Bradford) and support SB 3 (Beall) and ACA 11 (Caballero).

Floodgates

Print
PDF

About the same time that floodgates and emergency spillways were attempting to corral an abundance of water at the Oroville Dam and the Don Pedro Reservoir, the Capitol was inundated with a flood of a different kind—legislative proposals introduced en mass to beat the self-imposed deadline for bill introductions. Imagine, over 850 bills of all different stripes in the last day alone. What a way to celebrate a Presidents’ Day weekend!

Your legislative team has identified for close scrutiny and ongoing monitoring about 150 bills of the roughly 2,600 bills introduced this year. As usual, some of these bills have a direct effect on the ownership and management of residential rental property while others are more inclusive in scope. This column will report from time to time, in brief or in depth, on the more significant bills affecting the apartment industry. We start the discussion here with several of the most outrageous bills noted to date.

AB 1506 (Bloom)
would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act, a decade-in-the-making measure to place restrictions on local government’s ability to enforce overly restrictive rent control ordinances. The Act was designed to curb the excesses of early Berkeley and Santa Monica styled rent control ordinances, exempted all new construction and single-family homes, among other provisions. Its repeal would devastate the housing industry because it would allow local governments to adopt restrictive and punitive forms of rent control.

AB 1505 (Bloom) would authorize local ordinances to require, as a condition of development of residential rental housing units, that the development include a certain percentage of units affordable to, and occupied by, households that do not exceed the income limits for moderate income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income households as specified by certain cited sections of the Health and Safety Code.

AB 982 (Bloom) would amend the Ellis Act, regulating the permissible limits on local governments’ authority to regulate the ability of a rental property owner to go out of business, to require a minimum one-year notice to all residents as opposed to seniors and the disabled who must receive a notice at least one year in advance of the landlord going out of business.

AB 1585 (Bloom)
would establish in each local jurisdiction a new layer of regional zoning approval for certain affordable housing projects that meet specified standards relating to local housing needs and fast track a comprehensive permit approval process that includes public hearings and appeal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

SB 277 (Bradford), similar to AB 1505 (Bloom), would authorize local governments to require inclusionary housing affordability standards for all new developments. AB 915 (Ting) and AB 932 (Ting) also relate to similar local government housing affordability mandates in all new developments.

AB 199 (Chu) would require all private residential projects built on private property pursuant to an agreement with the State or a political subdivision to meet the requirements of projects that are defined as “public works” under existing law, thus imposing payment of prevailing wages or PLA agreements on these private projects.

AB 1667 (Friedman) would require urban water suppliers to install separate dedicated landscape water meters on all existing service connections for industrial, commercial and residential property, requiring massive retrofit replumbing, with varied completion dates depending upon the nature of the structural improvement on the property and the square footage of irrigated landscapes.

AB 291 (Chiu) contains several separate and detailed provisions relating to various prohibitions in the landlord-tenant relationship regarding the known or perceived immigration or citizenship status of a tenant or occupant. Among other provisions, it would create a tenant’s cause of action for damages in the amount of six times the monthly rent for unauthorized disclosure of such information and provide affirmative defenses in UD cases.

AB 1242 (Grayson)
would require an owner or agent of residential rental property having 16 or more units to reside at the property or within five miles of the property. It also would require written disclosure to every tenant by February 1, 2018, the name, telephone number and email address of the property owner or agent.

Much more about these significant bills of interest will be discussed in greater detail as they progress through the committee process in this legislative session. Turning attention to other bills of interest, we note in passing that our jointly sponsored bill on immigration described in February’s column, AB 299 (Calderon), conflicts in several meaningful ways with AB 291 (Chiu) mentioned above. Some other measures in no particular order of attention include the following.

AB 62 (Wood) would require all public housing agencies to implement a policy by July 30, 2018, to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in all public housing living units, interior areas, and outdoor areas within 25 feet of the units except in designated smoking areas.

AB 1569 (Caballero) would provide a detailed process to be followed by landlords and tenants for dealing with ADA accommodation of animals on the rental property where the disability or the disability related need for the animal is not apparent. It provides a step-by-step interactive procedure to validate important criteria.

SB 2 (Atkins) would create a separate fund in the State Treasury for support of affordable housing development by imposition of a $75 fee on the recording of every real estate instrument, paper or notice required or permitted to be recorded, not to exceed a total of $225 per single transaction.

SB 3 (Beall) would authorize the issuance of $3 Billion in bonds to be used for financing various existing housing programs as well as infill infrastructure financing and matching grant programs.

ACA 4 (Aguiar-Curry) would lower from 2/3 to 55 percent the vote required to authorize general obligation bonds to fund the con struction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing projects, if the proposition proposing that bond includes specified accountability requirements.

Stay tuned for updates on all of these and other bills of interest.

New Legistlative Challenges in Property Management

Print
PDF

It’s a new year, and with it comes many changes and new legislative challenges for the Association. We expect some remarkably bad bills we helped defeat in previous years to return this year. The list includes a proposed mandate that property managers accept Section 8 tenants. In addition to new legislative measures, a number of proposed State regulations affecting property management are expected to be voted on this year. During this time the impact of a new federal administration will unquestionably affect a broad spectrum of residents of our State.

Here’s a sample of what’s coming up this legislative year:

Democratic Super-majority: The results of the November 2016 election in California provided the Democrats with a super-majority in both houses of the Legislature. That means at least two-thirds of the 40 Senators and 80 Assembly Members are registered Democrats. That’s enough for them to approve tax increases, suspend legislative rules, pass urgency legislation, move constitutional amendments to the ballot, and overturn the Governor’s vetoes without any support from Republicans.

While the super-majority theoretically gives the Democrats vast powers to enact legislation of their liking, there may be a sufficient number of moderate and pro-business Democrats to provide a counterbalance on a limited number of issues in the progressive agenda. Still, it will be an uphill battle fending off the various anti-property management bills coming this year. It is evident this year more than ever: Association members must be proactive in calling their respective legislators to voice their concerns about the impact of legislative proposals on their business.

Section 8 Housing Bill: Last year’s awful Section 8 housing bill is coming back in 2017. As you may recall, the bill would force all residential rental property owners to participate in the Section 8 housing program. One of the adverse impacts of this proposal is to compel rental property owners to accept all Section 8 government-mandated lease terms and regulations—the manual of which is approximately 400 pages long. In the guise of pre venting discrimination based on “source of income,” the bill creates a special class of residents with more rights and fewer responsibilities than other resi dents. The significant administrative bur dens imposed on property owners who participate in the Section 8 program drive up costs and increase vacancies.

The Section 8 program is a voluntary federal program and should remain voluntary as intended under federal law. The bill unfortunately transforms this voluntary federal program into a mandatory one for thousands of California property owners, many of whom have legitimate business reasons for not wanting to participate in the program.

Price Control Bill: For the third legislative session in a row, a housing price control bill will be introduced. Commonly referred to as “inclusionary housing,” the price control mandates prohibit owners from setting the initial and subsequent rates on a percentage of their units. The bill will also seek to overturn Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, the case which upheld the Costa Hawkins Act exemption of newly constructed rental units from price controls. California’s much publicized “housing crisis” is beginning to be recognized (finally!) as caused by local and state government policies that stifle private capital investment.

Immigration Bill: The Association will be cosponsoring an immigration-related housing bill this legislative session. The bill would prohibit all government entities in all California jurisdictions from requiring rental property owners and managers from compiling, disclosing, reporting, providing or otherwise taking any action based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant or prospective tenant. The bill would also restate existing law that prohibits rental property owners from independently performing any of these acts.

The bill is an extension to a 2007 bill that was sponsored by the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities and the Apartment Association of Orange County which barred cities and counties from requiring owners to take action against tenants based on their citizenship. That bill came about in response to anti-immigration ordinances that were being introduced and adopted by local governments throughout the country. One such ordinance enacted by California’s own City of Escondido sought to ban rental property owners from renting to undocumented immigrants. Another ordinance, out of Hazeleton, Pennsylvania, sought to make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to live and work in the city. The ordinances required anyone renting housing to obtain an occupancy permit for which only those lawfully present in the United States were eligible. The ordinances also prohibited property owners from renting to unauthorized immigrants and city businesses from hiring them. The 2017 bill will ensure all rental property owners and tenants are protected from these types of discriminatory policies.

We expect the introduction of over 140 bills this year that will affect property managers and owners. In future articles, we will feature other legislative measures that should be of great interest.

Proposed Regulation on Applicant Inquiries

Print
PDF

On January 17, 2017, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing Council will consider adopting new regulations regarding the discriminatory effect, discriminatory land use practice and use of criminal history information when renting residential real property.

If that has not gotten your attention, then consider the impact of the following regulatory proposal:

“Any Practice of a Person or Owner that includes the use of, inquiries about, or solicitation of information about criminal history is unlawful if it has a discriminatory effect under Article 5 and Government Code section 12955.8.”

The proposed regulation may bar property owners and managers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history. If that language does not get your attention, then consider the next three proposed regulations:

  1. “A notice, advertisement, application, or other written or oral statement regarding criminal history or criminal records that conflicts with the provisions of this Article and Article 5 shall be a violation of the Act.”
  2. “Overbroad or arbitrary inquiries into or use of criminal history information in housing may have a discriminatory effect on members of Protected Classes. A discriminatory effect may be established through the use of conviction statistics or by any other evidence (emphasis added) that establishes a discriminatory effect.”
  3. “State or national level statistics showing substantial disparities in the conviction records of individuals based on membership in a Protected Class are presumptively sufficient to establish a discriminatory effect of a Practice under Article 5.”


Property owners and managers will find that they may never be able to consider an applicant’s history. The regulations try to mitigate the above mentioned regulations by permitting a property owner or manager to make inquiries of the applicant if certain prongs of a legally sufficient justification are met. To do that, the property owner and manager must:

  1. “Identify a specific substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest to support the Practice, such as a risk to the safety of its residents.” Owners cannot predict the future.
  2. “Take into account the nature and severity of an individual’s conviction and the amount of time that has passed since the criminal conduct occurred.” Property owners big and small will be required to hire experts to make recommendations regarding each applicant.
  3. “Limit consideration to convictions that are directly related to the individual’s capacity and likelihood of fulfilling the obligations related to the housing or services” (conviction of a burglary versus an alcohol related offense). Once again, property owners will find it extremely difficult to meet this burden.
  4. “Prove that its Practice actually achieves the identified interest, which includes proving that its Practice accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that poses a demonstrable risk to its proffered interest and criminal conduct.” The shift of the burden of proof is squarely on the property owner and manager which this also forces quantifiable proof by each owner and manager for each applicant to rent real property.


To make sure that we understand the totality of the proposed regulations, the following should be of great concern: “Practices with a Discriminatory Effect [that are] Prohibited … A Practice [that] has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on an individual or group of individuals or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of membership in a Protected Class.”

The language applies to every decision a property owner makes regarding the rental of real property.

Yes, of course, this may challenge the decision in Harris v Capitol Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 278 Cal.Rptr. 614; 805 P.2d.873 regarding economic discrimination which held in pertinent part that property owners and managers can set reasonable credit standards.

This is just one of several DFEH Council proposedregulations. Are you interested in finding the outcome?If so, we hope you join the Association orremain an active member.

Guide to California's New Laws

Print
PDF

Editor’s Note: This is Part 2 of a two-part article. Part 1 will appeared in the November issue of the Apartment Journal.

The bills described in this Rental Property Owners’ and Managers’ Guide are rental housing-related bills that were signed into law in 2016. Some of the bills we supported, on some we remained neutral, and some we opposed initially but moved to a neutral position after the author took significant amendments.

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all bills discussed herein become effective on January 1, 2017.

2016 Legislative Bills Signed into Law


AB 2476 (Daly) Notice of Parcel Tax to Non-Resident Property Owners.
The new law requires local agencies, including cities, counties, special districts and school districts, to provide a specified notice of a new parcel tax to non-resident owners within 30 days following a legislative body’s vote to place the proposed tax on the ballot.

AB 2501 (Bloom) Density Bonus Application Time:
Requires local government to adopt procedures and timelines to streamline the density bonus process.

The new procedures include providing a list of all documents and information required to be submitted with the density bonus application, and notifying the applicant for a density bonus whether the application is complete. The bill also prohibits a local government from conditioning the submission, review, or approval of an application on the preparation of an additional report or study that is not otherwise described.

AB 2515 (Weber) Water Efficient Landscaping:
The bill ensures that regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping are current and updated every three years. Specifically, it requires the Department of Water Resources to update the model water-efficient landscaping ordinance every three years, or make a finding that an update to the model ordinance is not a useful or effective means to improve landscape water use efficiency. This could have a profound impact on property owners who repair, remodel or improve exterior landscaping.

AB 2819 (Chiu) Hiding Unlawful Detainer Records from Public View:
Previously, unlawful detainers (UD) court filings were masked, or hidden from public view for 60 days following the initial court filing, and then were automatically unmasked and made public on credit reports unless the defendant prevails within the 60-day period. Under the new law, all UD filings will be permanently masked unless the rental property owner prevails at trial or a default judgment is obtained, because few UDs go to trial, and property owners rarely go back to court to obtain a default judgment, most UD filing records will remain hidden from public view. The permanent masking of this information will hinder rental property owners’ ability to assess a prospective tenant’s history of making or not making timely rent payments. Without an accurate record of UD filings, owners will have to consider new ways to assess the creditworthiness of an applicant’s rental payment history, including asking for bank statements and returned checks. Owners may also want to consider as an industry whether to adopt new reporting processes, in which owners report to the credit bureaus every time a tenant is late paying his or her rent. Individualized reporting would help fill a void created by this new masking law. A Q&A will be written on the new law and will be available within the next 30 days.

AB 2820 (Chiu) Price Gouging:
The bill revises the definition of state of emergency and local emergencies for the purpose of criminal price gouging increasing prices, including residential rental rates and towing services by more than 10 percent. The bill initially defined a “state of emergency” in such broad terms it could have included housing shortages and economic reces sions resulting from policy decisions and regulation  Our amendments sharply limited the ability of a local government to declare a state of emergency and restrict rental increases. If that version of the bill passed, the State could have declared our recent recession as a state of emergency, and placed strict rent control on all residential rentals statewide. San Francisco would have been able to declare an emergency because of its housing shortage. State of emergency is not restricted and only applies to mean a natural or manmade emergency resulting from an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, or other natural or manmade disaster.

Our lobbyists worked with the author to amend the bill to ensure that “emergencies” for the purpose of rent freezing, relates to natural and manmade disasters like earthquakes, floods, fires, riots, storms, droughts, and plant or animal infestation or disease.

AB 2873 (Thurmond) All Building Inspectors to Become CASp Inspectors by 2020: Under the bill, starting January 1, 2020, all city and county building inspectors employed or retained by a local agency who conduct permitting and plan check services to review for compliance with state construction related accessibility standards by a place of public accommodation with respect to new construction or renovation, including, but not limited to, projects relating to tenant improvements that may impact access, must be by certified access specialists.

Requiring all city building inspectors to become CASp inspectors will help make the inspection and permitting process more efficient. Because all buildings need to be disability-access compliant, it makes sense that building inspectors be trained to ensure that the buildings they inspect are access compliant. To pay for the new mandate, the bill increases the fee from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 for an application for a local business license from $1 to $4, however, in no case will the fee be less than $1 per business license on an indefinite basis.

SB 7 (Wolk) Submetering and Residential Utility Billing Service Requirements.

On January 1, 2018, water submeters are to be installed in new multifamily construction or mixed use commercial properties. In addition, tenants that are to be billed for actual water use through submeters are to receive a specified notice at point of rent concerning the billing and are to receive notice about water usage on each water bill. Owners will be permitted to charge up to $4.75 per bill for administrative processing. Repair and replacement of water-related drips and leaks are to be completed within 21 days. Remedies for non-payment are restricted. Billing for excessive water use is defined. Deductions from a tenant’s security deposit will be permitted if the tenant fails to pay his or her water bill. Grace periods to pay water bills are defined. Limitations on late payment fees are specified. The bill only applies to owners that have submeters.

SB 269 (Roth) Technical Violations of Disability


Access Laws: The bill allows qualifying small businesses to avoid liability for minor “technical violations” of disability access laws if they correct the violations within 15 days. “Technical violations” include certain interior signs (other than directional signs or signs that identify the location of accessible “elements, facilities, or features”), lack of certain exterior signs (other than parking signs and directional signs that indicate accessible pathways or entrance and exit doors), and the order in which parking signs are placed, the color of parking signs, the color of parking lot striping, faded or damaged paint on otherwise compliant parking spaces, and others. The new law states that the above presumption of limited immunity affects the plaintiff’s burden of proof and is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the plaintiff did experience difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment on the particular occasion as a result of one or more of the technical violations. The bill also protects certain businesses in certain conditions from paying minimum statutory damages for construction-related accessibility claims made during the 120-day period after a CASp has inspected the business.

SB 814 (Hill) Water Conservation:
The bill prohibits excessive water use during periods of drought emergencies by metered residential customers in single-family homes and multifamily properties where each unit is individually metered or submetered “by the urban retail water supplier.”

Our amendments assure that penalties will not apply to multifamily properties where each unit is not separately metered or where each unit is submetered and the owner bills water to the tenant. It also requires water suppliers to implement ways to discourage excessive water use, including rate hikes, block tiers, water budgets, and rate surcharges.

Proposed State Regulations

Although no new housing regulations were adopted in 2016, there are some significant housing regulations that are being proposed.

Support Animals: The State’s housing agency, Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), is proposing broad new regulations requiring rental property owners to allow tenants to have “emotional support animals” (ESA) of all breeds and types to live with them in their units. An ESA is an animal that provides emotional support to persons with disabilities who have a disability-related need for such support. Although federal regulations already proscribe rules requiring owners to make reasonable accommodations to allow tenants to have ESAs living with them, DFEH’s proposal is concerning because of how broad the right to have an ESA is under the proposal, and the limited to nonexistent authority owners have to deny a support animal request when the animal poses a threat to health and safety of other tenants, and to the property. Our lobbying team has been involved with the ongoing discussions on the state level, and will keep the Association updated on its progress.

Occupancy Limits: DFEH is also proposing new occupancy limits and standards. Occupancy limits the maximum number of tenants per unit an owner can establish. Currently, the occupancy limits are based on what is “reasonable.” Unofficially, reasonable occupancy limits in California is two persons per bedroom plus one additional tenant. The proposed new occupancy standards, however, would require owners to allow up to 15 people in a threebedroom apartment. Apartments and neighborhoods are simply not built to withstand the impact of allowing 15 people per apartment unit. Our lobbyists have and will continue to be involved at the State level to find reasonable solutions to address the State’s occupancy concerns.

Criminal Background Screening:
New regulations are being adopted with respect to employment criminal background screening procedures and rules. The rules include delaying background checks at least until after the first level of screening has been completed. Although no current regulations are being proposed with respect to screening tenants for residential units, we are likely to see movement in that area in the next few years.

The information provided herein is intended to provide general guidance and awareness on recently passed State laws and regulations and shall not be construed in any way as a substitute for individual legal advice. Those that require specific advice should consult an attorney.

The information provided herein is intended to provide general guidance and awareness on recently passed State laws and regulations and shall not be construed in any way as a substitute for individual legal advice. Those that require specific advice should consult an attorney.

Ron may be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Related Articles

Contact AACSC

Apartment Association,

California Southern Cities
333 W. Broadway St., Suite 101
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 426-8341

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

Who's Online

We have 77 guests and 1 member online