Posted by: David Giacalone | June 28, 2017

The City’s Bike Plan: a Crucial Battle for Riverside Park

A Shared-Use Path in Riverside Park? The Safety & Comfort of Park Users, and the Soul of the Park Are at Stake.

 . . .  Tomorrow, Thursday, June 29, 2017, the City of Schenectady will unveil and explain Bike Schenectady (Draft), the Schenectady Bike Infrastructure Plan. The public presentation of what is surely a near-final Bike Schenectady Plan makes the issues raised at this weblog last year very timely and the concerns quite urgent: see the post “does a bike path make sense for Riverside Park” (short URL: tinyurl.com/RiversideBikes). That post has been updated because of the release of the Bike Schenectady Plan, with additional description of the current (traditional) activity on the Riverside Park path.

  • You are urged to review that earlier posting to supplement this piece, which focuses more directly on Bike Schenectady.  Last year’s post describes the Path, the Park, and their use and users, along with City Code sections relevant to bicycles and parks, and it contains discussion, photos and images. The piece calls into question the conversion of the only paved path in a small, treasured neighborhood park, that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, to a shared-use path. The Riverside Park path has been used for generations by people of all ages almost like a “public square”, for many passive-park purposes. Bike Schenectady would make it into a “keep-moving”, connector thoroughfare, purposely attracting many cyclists seeking to move, in both directions, as quickly as possible through the Park, on its 10-foot wide path.

below: Detail showing the Mohawk Harbor-Stockade portion the Schenectady Bicycle Infrastructure Plan Map, with . .

 

  • Riverside Park shown as part of the existing off-road bike network
  • Ingersoll Ave., a one-lane street, shown as a Shared Lane road, for bicycle and vehicle traffic, along with a portion of Front Street stretching from River St. to Ingersoll Ave.
  • Washington Ave., from Riverside Park to Union St., shown as a planned Shared Use Path; and
  • Union Street from Broadway to Washington Ave. is shown as a Shared Lane road

This Slideshow has images of the Riverside Park path and its many kinds of users and usages. Any decision about bringing large numbers of cyclists to the path and the Park must consider the impact on the current usage and users.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

.

Victoria Walks, an Australian walking-advocacy coalition, has extensive experience with shared-use bike-ped paths in Melbourne. After reviewing the literature and research, Victoria Walks has come to important conclusions quite relevant to whether a shared-use path makes sense for our Riverside Park. See Shared paths – finding solutions (Victoria Walks position paper, May 2015), which is based on its comprehensive research paper, Shared paths – the issues. And, see “Footpaths are for feet“. Here are some quotes from Victoria Walks on Shared-Use Paths:

 “Victoria Walks has significant reservations regarding shared paths and how they impact walking, particularly by more vulnerable walkers. Generally, slow moving recreational cyclists may be able to share paths with walkers. However, walkers do not generally mix well with commuter or sports cyclists, who typically travel at higher speed.”

“Road managers should avoid converting footpaths to shared paths, as they may be ‘designing out’ the most vulnerable road users – older walkers and those with a disability.”

“Shared paths are commonly built for both bike riders and walkers, but they can be an uncomfortable place to walk, especially for children, disabled or older people.”

I’m old and not very nimble — it’s [a] frightening silent menace.”

[Elderly] “For those aged 75 and over, walking makes up 77% of their total physical activity. . .. The study included a survey of 1128 senior Victorians – 39% rated bicycle riders on shared walking or cycling paths as a moderate to major constraint to their walking. Cyclists on footpaths will deter seniors from walking and limit their ability to live their everyday lives.”

[Speed] “Evidence suggests that cyclists do not necessarily slow down when they share a path with pedestrians. A study from Sydney and Newcastle found the average speed of cyclists on footpaths was 21 km/h [13.04 mph], exactly the same speed as cyclists on roads with a speed limit of 50 km/h [31 mph] or less.”

[Goal] Victoria Walks strongly supports: “The community and government working together to find solutions for both walking and cycling, while ensuring pedestrian safety is not compromised.”

 FHWA materials on the planning and design of shared bike-ped paths, from “Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation” (Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-133, July  2006; see Chapter 19, Greenways and Shared Paths), confirm that our common-sense concerns about the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists on a path set in an established park, with the mix of current-customary users are real and point to the inappropriateness of the planned shared use path in Riverside Park, absent severe restrictions on cyclist speed. Such restrictions may only be achievable by requiring that bicycles be walked through Riverside Park.

The FHWA Course referred to above is almost 500 pages long. But, click here for a 7-page set of excerpts from the Chapter on Share Used Paths.  Here is a sample of relevant points:

  • “The popularity of many urban paths has shown that large volumes of pathway traffic, with a diverse user mix, can create congested and conflictive path conditions similar to that on urban highways. Therefore, planning and design of shared-use paths must be done with the same care and attention to recognized guidelines and user needs as the design of on-roadway bikeways and other transportation facilities.”
  • “Shared-use paths are typically used by a diverse set of users representing different travel modes, using different types of equipment and traveling at different speeds (see figure 19-1). It is important to understand, even within the basic user categories of bicyclists, pedestrians, and skaters, how diverse path users can be.”
  •  “In addition to diverse users and a variety of equipment used, shared-use paths serve a wide variety of trip purposes. User behavior, such as travel speed and willingness to make stops, varies considerably with different trip purposes. Especially in urban and suburban areas, paths are routinely used for commuting to work or school, running errands, visiting friends, getting exercise, observing nature, and seeking recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors.

     “Moreover, people of all ages and abilities use and enjoy shared-use pathsfrom the very young to the very old, from the novice cyclist to the marathon trainer. Accommodating and balancing the various needs created by this diverse user market is a central challenge for today’s shared-use path planners and designers.” [emphases added]

  • “Too often, agencies charged with creating a shared-use path fail to understand or adopt a crucial pathway planning principal—that by definition, shared-use paths serve both transportation and recreation functions. As such, they must be planned and designed to be a part of two systems of community infrastructure: parks and recreation, and transportation.”
  • The most common feature of many greenways is a trail…with so many types of users in the United States, there are many types of trails, and elementary though it may seem, it is important to distinguish among them. All greenway trails should be compatible with the natural landscape and its functions.

     “What distinguishes the typical greenway path from other types of shared-use paths is that the path is only one component of a larger corridor, which is primarily defined by its environmental features or functions, including waterways, forests, wetlands, shorelines, or other natural or restored landscapes. Moreover, the reason that the corridor exists may not be primarily to create a context for a path, but for larger environmental purposes such as habitat preservation, to absorb and accommodate floodwaters, or to provide parkland and recreation resources for human communities.”

 Despite its 79-page length, the draft Bike Schenectady Plan shows no indication that our City and County planners and politicians have considered how different from a policy, practicality or public-relations perspective it is to construct a path through a hitherto unused portion of land along a river, as compared to imposing a shared-used transportation function on a path used for more than a century for parkland purposes.

Similarly, the Plan spends considerable space discussing the attitudes and goals of various types of cyclists [see page 2-1, which describes four basic types, including Strong & Fearless(<1%) and Interested But Concerned (60%)]. But not a word is presented to suggest there are very different kinds of pedestrians, with greatly different ages, abilities, activities/goals, and tolerance for the presence of cyclists. Most important, there is no indication that the Schenectady Bike planners appreciate the possibility that a significant number of current and potential users will be literally scared away by cyclists in any large numbers going through the Park at more than a very leisurely pace. Mothers with strollers or a handful of youngsters to control, and the elderly or the vision-impaired, who can fall even without a collision, are two such groups. 

 Likewise, there is no indication of an appreciation by the authors of the Bike Schenectady Plan that (1) factors making a 10-foot wide shared path in Central Park acceptable do not exist at Riverside Park (such as, other paved spaces for stopping to chat or to observe the sights, scores of acres upon which to play, and a fenced playlot); (2) a much wider path would be needed in Riverside Park to ensure the safety and comfortable use of its path by pedestrians or cyclists. For example, the predominance of dog-walkers along the path, often with more than one dog at a time, needing to stop and wait for a dog to do its doggie business, makes quick action and movement, and constant attention to approaching bikers, by the dog walkers quite problematic. And, (3) “education” without consistent “enforcement” activity, is most unlikely to change the behavior of a significant proportion of bicyclists who fail to indicate their approach orally or with a bell.

Unfortunately, there are doubtlessly many more points that could and should be made. Readers with different experiences, recreational desires, and physical needs than the author of this website surely can make a litany of relevant concerns.

 If you are concerned about the impact of a shared-used bike path in Riverside Park, please do not merely smack your head or give up in despair over another Silly Schenectady Scheme and its Dumb Done Deals. Beyond attending the June 29th Public Meeting at the Central Library, effective input  may be impossible (given the “open house format”), we suggest:

  1. Leave Comments at the Bike Schenectady website, which encourages public input. Give reasons rather than just conclusions, please. This posting, and our prior one on the topic, as well as the resources below, should give you plenty of ideas for points to make, if your common sense alone seems inadequate.

  2.  Ask the members of the Schenectady City Council to take charge and responsibility for the designating of the Riverside Park path as a part of the City’s off-road cycling network. They recently helped rescue a large part of this special Park from use for a new sewage pumping station and did not enjoy being surprised by the proposed on-the-park proposal from the Mayor and his consultants. I think they are as surprised as we here in the Stockade to learn that the Bike Planners consider Riverside Park to be an existing part of the off-road cycle network. The bike path could do far more damage to the usage and essence of the Park. Click on thumbnail list to the left for contact information, and committee assignments.
  3. Let the media know of your opposition.

Posted by: David Giacalone | June 25, 2017

a Saturday night rainbow

Having my Fujifilm T550 camera in my pocket allowed me to snap a few pictures last night of a rainbow that graced our sky on a particularly lovely Saturday evening.

. . photos taken just before 8 P.M., looking south from Liberty Street, just west of So. Ferry St. . . click on a photo for a larger version . .

.

rainbow24Jun2017d

';[]pp[p[p[p

 

Posted by: David Giacalone | June 13, 2017

what the Parkland Alienation resolutions mean

IMG_3832

. . please excuse our enthusiasm . . 

 Miracle along the Mohawk? Last night, June 12, 2017, just seven weeks after suns along the Mohawk sounded the alarm about “the at-risk West Lawn of Riverside Park” (April 23, 2017), the City Council of Schenectady enacted two parkland alienation resolutions about Riverside Park. Rather than the usual rubber-stamping of mayoral proposals that happens too often at City Hall, the two-resolution “compromise” should leave less than one-seventh of the originally threatened parcel “at risk” of being removed from park use. We went from a threat to despoil a half-acre of the City’s most beautiful and tranquil parkland, to promises of best efforts to keep any alienation to no more than a 30-foot swath alongside the Old Pump House lot that would equal about 0.07% of an acre.

In our April 23rd post, we hoped “there will soon be a full, objective discussion of the Proposed Plan and alternatives to it” and that “it will be led by an energized and responsible Stockade Association.” While the first goal was not reached, the compromised achieved under claims of tight time restraints greatly lessened the disappointment over alternatives not fully addressed. Moreover, that disappointment was eclipsed by the fulsome fulfillment of the second goal. Once roused to action, the leadership of the Stockade Association demonstrated the serious attention a committed, hardworking group of neighborhood advocates can garner from City leaders and an often indifferent public. [Click on the image to the left for an annotated tax map that shows the still at-risk 30′ parcel of parkland, and gives some salient points.]

The following photos, taken today (June 13), show the piece of land lying next to the old pump station’s west fence, with an approximation indicated of the 30-foot line.

  . . 

. . above: [L] the “30-ft. swath”; and [R] the “rescued” portion of Riverside Park. . 

Riggi Statement

When combined with the renewed vigor of the Stockade Association, the attentiveness of City Council Members and Mayor Gary McCarthy leaves me considerably more optimistic than I have been in decades, that City Hall may be willing to work with residents to produce better outcomes. (Especially, I hope, when a proposal can’t seem to pass the Smack-Your-Forehead-Test.) We did not convince a majority of the Council to refuse to alienate any part of the Park; in fact, only Vince Riggi (I) voted against requesting the home rule alienation bill (click on the image to the right for his insightful Statement). Nonetheless, several members of the Council made it clear to the Mayor and their colleagues that they were stunned by the proposal to take the precious west lawn out of park use, and that Park neighbors and users were raising some important questions.

  Council members, therefore, took the Mayor up on his promise to Stockade residents two weeks ago to do everything he could to keep a new pump station within the old station’s lot, with a minimum of spillover into the Park. They took the unusual step of voting for a second, clarifying, resolution “Affirming the Mayor and City Council’s Intention of Preserving Parkland in Riverside Park.” [The text of that Resolution is copied in at the foot of this posting, and is worth your time, especially if you’d like to see how serious our elected leaders are to avoid unnecessary taking of any of Riverside Park.] They even resolved not to accept any design or approve a contract that included more than the 30′ leeway, “without a full public hearing on such design.” [If you need a reminder of what we were up against, please click the “postcard” to the Left of this paragraph.]

State Sen. James “Jim” Tedisco sponsored NYS Senate Bill 6692, which would grant the City of Schenectady, acting through its City Council, the home rule power to “alienate” 0.5 acres of Riverside Park for use as the location of a new sewage pumping station. As the Times Union’s Paul Nelson has explained, Sen. Tedisco wrote to the Mayor and City Council last Thursday offering to wait for a revised Bill that would alienate no more than the 30′ of land west of the current pump station fence. However, Mayor McCarthy’s principal assistant, David Fronk, wrote Friday morning that the City would not accept Tedisco’s offer. Moreover, Assemblyman Phil Steck let the City know late Friday that the Assembly was too close to the end of their session to allow a delay for rewriting the half-acre bill. Steck and Tedisco, however, have both stressed their hope that the new pump station could be kept within the lot of the current pump station, and would use no more than the discussed additional 30 feet. For Schenectady Gazette coverage of the parkland alienation compromise, click here (if you have a subscription).

VRiggiPumping Although we are encouraged, and plan to take advantage of the improved receptiveness at City Hall, please be assured that the proprietor of this website and the leadership of the Stockade Association plan to stay vigilant . In addition, council member Riggi has promised his colleagues (photo to the right) and the Administration that  he plans “to keep their feet to the fire” to make sure they keep the promises contained in clarifying Resolution. I hope we won’t have to smell shoe leather burning at City Hall.

DSCF2979

Ready to Defend Our Park!

The most worrisome part of this campaign to save Riverside Park is the fact that we would need to wage such a fight for such a special part of our community. Dangerously silly proposals can only happen when the City Council is kept in the dark as to what is happening around them in City Hall, and the executive branch does not fear close questioning of its legislative requests. The Mayor and Corporation Counsel are not the only ones who should be blamed for the chronic failure to give council members (and decision-makers on other City commissions and boards) so little information explaining proposals, and especially the pros and cons of a proposal and alternatives. It is the responsibility of Council and board members to be well-informed, and to insist on the information needed to do their jobs in a responsible manner.

City Hall can be a beach.

I hope the near loss of the City’s precious and rare riverfront parkland stunned Council members into remembering their rights and obligations in fulfilling their duties to the residents of Schenectady, current and future. For myself, I hope yesterday was the last time I will have to bring my No Pump Station in Riverside Park beach towel to City Hall [see photo to the right]. Instead, it can accompany me to the lovely west lawn for many years to come.

  • red-checkI’m not at all sure that the Mayor and his Corporation Counsel are particularly excited about Council members wanting fuller briefings and explanations of proposals and alternatives. One indication of their reluctance: To “make the Stockade happy”, Corporation Council accepted virtually the entire Stockade draft for the Intent to Preserve Parkland Resolution (below). Nonetheless, portions deleted from the Stockade draft tended to be those favoring more information. For example, the Second Resolve paragraph now begins, “Resolved, without a full public hearing on such design, the City Council shall . . .”. However, the Stockade version of that provision stated: “Resolved, without submission of full design criteria, including written discussion of the pros and cons of alternatives with a smaller footprint, and a full public hearing on such design and parkland alienation, City Council shall . . .”.  So, continued vigilance, but with perhaps a bit more optimism, is called for.

follow-up (Thursday evening, June 15, 2017): The Schenectady Daily Gazette did a good job crafting an Editorial that will be in Friday’s newspaper (June 16), entitled, “Editorial: Good deal on pump station: Compromise required active citizens, open-minded council” (June 16, 2017). Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:

“Government Body Listens to Citizens, Comes Up with Reasonable Compromise.”

You don’t see many headlines like that these days. But that headline could have topped the story in Wednesday’s Gazette about the Schenectady City Council agreeing to reduce the impact of a new sewer pump station in the Stockade’s Riverside Park. . .

. . . The resolution isn’t perfect, nor does it cover all the issues, like the fact that the city passed this resolution without seeing a design plan to ensure the compromise was actually possible. …

Still, while it doesn’t appear to be an ironclad promise, it’s clear the council’s intentions were honorable and well-intended.

Also, the language appears to leave the city with some wiggle room.. . .

. . . So opponents will still need to maintain the pressure to ensure the city keeps its pledges, including speaking out at the promised public hearing on any new design proposal.

… But as compromises go, this seems as good as one might get.

Opponents of the new station deserve credit for educating and pressuring city officials to minimize the impact on their park. And city officials deserve credit for listening to the concerns and coming up with a fair plan that attempts to address them.

Can you imagine if Congress or the state Legislature worked this way?

Nah, probably not.

 

  • Finally, if the notion of parkland alienation, or the process used to achieve it in NYS, still has you scratching your head, see “Handbook on the Alienation of Municipal Parkland in New York” from the State’s Department of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation. The Handbook should quench, if not quash, your curiosity.

The following resolution was passed unanimously by the City of Schenectady City Council, June 12, 2017:

Read More…

Posted by: David Giacalone | June 12, 2017

a few downtown Schenectady scenes

DSCF3035-001 . . sm-ART-er.org student art – 01Jun2017

 My resolution to take [almost-]daily walks has brought me downtown a lot more than usual this Spring. My pocket Fuji camera comes in handy when a site grabs my interest. Here are a few examples from the past few months. You can see a larger version of any photo by pausing the Slideshow on the image, right-clicking, and choosing Open Image in New Tab.

DSCF2788

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Posted by: David Giacalone | June 5, 2017

Riverside Parkland alienation status

update: see “what the parkland alienation resolutions mean” (June 13, 2017)


ParkAlienationMapA
 In an unusual meeting late this afternoon, June 5, 2017, Schenectady’s Mayor, Corporation Counsel and seven Council members met with a half dozen residents of the Stockade to discuss a resolution pending before the Council to request permission from the State of New York to alienate about a half acre of Riverside Park to be used as the location of a new sewerage pumping station. The image to right depicts and explains the Park Alienation situation in Schenectady as of tonight. Click on it for a larger version. There is additional discussion below.

Background:

Read More…

Posted by: David Giacalone | May 25, 2017

pump house blues? don’t throw in the towel

DSCF2990

defend Riverside Park

 Fighting City Hall, or simply having an informative discussion with it, has frustrated citizens for as long as there have been citizens and city halls. But, some issues are worth the fight and the frustrations. That is especially true when there appear to be thoughtful elected and appointed leaders who seem open to meaningful discourse.

On a gray and rainy Thursday afternoon, I took a colorful Protest Blanket — or OpEd Towel — down my block to the west end of Riverside Park for a photo shoot. The results can be seen in the following slideshow and throughout this posting. This absorbent blanket speaks for itself: it is way too soon to throw in the towel, which I hope to be using as a blanket on the West Lawn for years to come. (And, see, Memorial Day Bonus at foot of this posting.)

 . . 

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

.

 . . 

Memorial Day Bonus (May 29, 2017):

PumpHouseTowel-Lawrence [L] Lawrence opines

IMG_3792 . . IMG_3789

. . above: Riverside Park Playlot . . 

PumpHouseTowel-Arthurs

NewPumpStation2 To help the cause, print out a copy of our “Pump Station Petition“, to sign or distribute.

Posted by: David Giacalone | May 16, 2017

send City Hall a message on the New Pump Station

updates (May 21, 2017): “Messenger Slideshow” now includes Days 1-4.

(May 22, 2017) Our Message Sent to Mayor & City Council. Click for pdf. version of email, which included as attachments the three collages found below.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

)

NIOPSendAMessageDay1 . . click [L] Day 1 Collage;

  SAMDay2e . . SAMDay3-4e 

above: [L]. . Day 2 Collage … [R] Days 3 & 4 Collage. .

Noah-Messenger1 . . [Noon, Wed.] here’s Noah, my first Not In Our Park “Messenger”. .

Please let the folks in Schenectady’s City Hall know if you agree with our message that there should be No New Pump Station in Riverside Park — instead, retrofit or upgrade the Old Pump Station on its own parcel, or put a new sewage pump station in the extra space on that lot, or elsewhere, outside our Park.

IMG_2324 . . IMG_9476-001

Below are names and email addresses for City Council Members, and the Mayor, and two Gazette journalists who may be sympathetic to our outcry — especially due to the lack of transparency and neighborhood input.

NIOPsceneF You could also download and send one of the “photo OpEds” to Save Our Park we posted on May 10th, along with words of your own. Or, take a photo with Our Sign [immediately below] or one of your own on the West Lawn of Riverside Park.

  • the first Selfie-Pumpie photo session will be Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, May 15-17, from 6 to 7 PM, on the West Lawn of Riverside Park. Look at this space to see if additional dates are added.
  • RALLY – June 24. A Rally to support the Not In Our Park campaign will be held on Saturday, June 24, at 11 AM, at Arthur’s Market, 35 N. Ferry Street. Who knows, by then it might be a Victory Party.
  • Share this posting with the short URL: tinyurl.com/NIOPmessage
  • Thanks for your words and actions in support of Saving Our Park from a new pump station.

SEND CITY HALL YOUR MESSAGE – words, images, etc, with the email addresses below.

 Note that Council President Leesa Perazzo sets the Council’s agenda and priorities; and that resolutions relating to a New Pump Station to replace or update the Old Pump House have been handled to date by the Public Services & Utilities Committee. However, unanswered questions about funding the grandiose new pump station project, with its additional $10 million bill for new piping, suggest that the Finance Committee should have many questions and concerns. And, of course, the Recreation & Parks Committee should be interested in preserving parkland. Vince Riggi (Ind.) heads the Claims committee, which probably is not relevant to our campaign, but please do not forget that Council member Riggi was the only vote against building a new pump station when the Council voted out a resolution to that effect in September 2014, and Vince would like to know your opinion.

SCHENECTADY CITY COUNCIL

President, Leesa Perazzo – lperazzo@schenectadyny.gov

COMMITTEES

Public Service & Utilities 

Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas – Chair – kZalewskiWildzunas@schenectadyny.gov

Marion Porterfield – mporterfield@schenectadyny.gov

Vincent Riggi – v_riggi@verizon.net

Health & Recreation 

Marion Porterfield – Chair

John Mootooveren – jmootooveren@schenectadyny.gov

Vincent Riggi

Finance 

Leesa Perazzo – Chair – lperazzo@schenectadyny.gov

John Mootooveren

Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas

Administrative Efficiency 

John Polimeni – Chair – jpolimeni@schenectadyny.gov

City Development & Planning 

Ed Kosiur – Chair – ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov

John Mootooveren

Public Safety                            Intergovernmental Relations 

John Mootooveren – Chair        Ed Kosiur – Chair

Mayor Gary McCarthy – gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov

State Legislature

110th Assemblyman Phil Steck – SteckP@nyassembly.gov

111th- Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara – SantabarbaraA@nyassembly.gov 

49th – State Senate – Jim Tedisco – tedisco@nysenate.gov

Schenectady Gazette 

Editorial Page Editor – Mark Mahoney – mmahoney@dailygazette.net

Columnist – Sara Foss – sfoss@dailygazette.net

Posted by: David Giacalone | May 14, 2017

views from and of Riverside Park west

Since starting my photography hobby about 9 years ago, some of my favorite photos have been taken while standing on the west side of Riverside Park. Ice floes, autumn trees, sunsets, rowers and runners, dog-walkers, and much more have come into view, often with results I enjoy sharing. As we work to preserve the beauty and tranquility of the west end of Riverside Park, I’d like to show you some of those photos in a slideshow I hope we can get the Schenectady City Council to click through some day soon.

. . after the Slideshow, read about Saving the West Lawn . .

. . share this posting with this short URL: tinyurl.com/WLawn2

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Older Posts »

Categories