More NIMBYism in Yaletown: Emery Barnes Park Community Association

A few weeks ago, these posters went up all over Yaletown, suggesting amongst other things that homeless people who suffer with addiction are biohazards.  I personally found offense in both the language and the suggestion that the people of Yaletown don’t want a low barrier heat shelter in our neighbourhood.  I responded by emailing all the people mentioned on the poster with the following:


 A photograph of a poster in the Yaletown area has been making the rounds on Twitter ( that concerns me.
This poster is asking Yaletown residents to contact all of you to protest a shelter that is to open December 1st on Seymour Street.  I am a Yaletown resident, and I will not be protesting this shelter.
I live a few blocks from this location and welcome this addition to our community.  The homeless situation in Vancouver is severe, yes.  But the problem is not that we are providing too many low-barrier spaces.  The problem is that we are not providing enough.  Until all the vulnerable people in our city are taken care of, I will continue to welcome new support services for them to this community.  I sincerely hope that the city does not listen to a handful of detractors and NIMBYs – these are important services for our community and I, for one, am happy they are forthcoming.
Yours sincerely,
Neal Jennings
I almost immediately got a response from someone responsible for the seymour.residents account, which is now tagged “Admin Emery Barnes Park Community Assn.”

Hi Neal,

Be assured the residents opposing the placement of this shelter are not against helping the homeless. We live in an area already saturated with services, and a great part of our concern is the impact a low barrier shelter will have on the rehabilitation efforts of Covenant House, and the Coast Mental Health Centre, already doing excellent work for the homeless.

There is the concern that those who are not asked to curtail their drug use out on the street, will attract temptation to those who are working hard to leave that life behind.

The final point is that this is the wrong location.


I didn’t bother replying, as the entire email just screamed “troll.”  It also said to me that these people (or perhaps just this one crusading person, I don’t know who else is in this purported association) actually think they’re standing up for community organisations rather than opposing them… and also that they’re totally NIMBYs.  “This is the wrong location” is basically just saying “we don’t want homeless people here.”  The entire analysis completely fails to understand that shelters are meant to help the problem, not encourage it, and that homeless people with addictions will exist in this community whether a low-barrier shelter goes in or not – if anything, not providing them with a shelter means they will be in the park (and may potentially die there), rather than inside.

Anyways, I also got a quick reply from the city saying the message had been passed on to those responsible; I’ve heard nothing further from the city.

Somehow, though, this ‘association’ is continuing its campaign, and I’ve ended up on their mailing list.  I received a massive and quite ranty email from them today.  I’ll let its extreme tone speak for itself – including suggestions that residents call the police on shelter users.  The invokation of “agency oversaturation” is an unusual one, though, as is the use of “common sense” (where have we heard that before?) as if it were objective evidence.  All the formatting (including the intense red font) is theirs, not mine.

Furniture going into 1210 Seymour St. HEAT Shelter:

It is slated to open shortly. We call on all of you to keep a photo record of any changes you notice to our streets, in the park, disruption, loitering or littering, so we have photographic proof on any complaints we may make.

The Emery Barnes Park Community Association continues to put forth the inappropriateness of 1210 Seymour St. as a site for a Low Barrier HEAT Shelter, and to protest the City’s lack of community consultation on such a serious matter.

The core committee has been busy gathering information and allies. Read through this update, where we share what we have learned and surmised.(You automatically become part of this committee when you volunteer to play an active role: Contact us at to get involved.)

Our most recent projects include a new press release that has just been sent out to the media this weekend, and the creation of a new flyer, featuring a map of all the social services currently operating in our area that stand to be negatively impacted by the Low Barrier shelter. The map gives a clear picture of the shelter’s proximity to the park and residential towers, in a way that words cannot do alone. It is fresh off the press, and ready to hit the streets. and into your buildings with your help.

Attached please find:

1) The pdf of the press release.
2) The jpg map showing all the social services currently functioning around the 1210 Seymour site, if you want to attach it to a mailing of your own, or put it up on your facebook or web page to illustrate our dilemma. It can be attached to a twitter comment as well, if you are a blogger.

3)The new Handout flyer, both for your information, and to share with neighbours. It is ready to be printed on your own printer, or contact us to pick up colour copies.

Our key issues are in the press release, but to refresh our stand, here is a synopsis:

1) Two major social service agencies are already on the 1200 block Seymour, offering housing, rehabilitation and food services for the homeless. Ten more are within 2 blocks, most also serving the homeless and providing rehabilitation service. This good work can undermined by the street activity of the users of the shelter, with its ‘Low Barrier”, open acceptance of drug and alcohol use, and behavioural problems.

2), City avoided the due process associated with both rezoning, and issuing a building permit, by applying for a temporary permit (like applying to put up a party tent in your yard), and built them undercover, not intending the public to know about locations until just a few weeks before they opened. (Our residents found out through a contact in city hall, and in response to our outcry, the city called a meeting to try to allay our fears, and to be clear we had no say in the matter.) No public hearing, no community consultation, no good neighbour agreement which is a requirement for such shelters under normal conditions, and, as we just found out, no tendering of operating budget, which goes against normal government policy.

3) All best placement principles for a problematic facility were ignored: See release. One of the most basic in urban planning is not to place such a facility near a family Park. This is the bottom line of our protest.  Heat Shelters provide a valuable city service. But in this case, any benefit is outweighed by the damage caused in this location. See Councillor Affleck’s comments on this in the press release.

It is just common sense that mixing on one city block 1) At-Risk youth (Covenant House) at one corner, 2) the Mentally Vulnerable (Coast Mental Health Drop In and Integrated Housing across the street) and now 3) Low Barrier Homeless across from it, also across Davie Street from Emery Barnes Park, is a recipe for disaster. It is also a unconscionable blow to the residential families living amongst them, already being good neighbours to more than our share of Social Services.  Take a good look at the map of our new flyer. The city is supposed to spread services fairly across the city. The saturation here belies fairness.

Zeroing in for a moment on the 1200 block of Seymour, it has evolved from a light industrial area to be a fairly quiet residential street with no homeless sleeping about, as our social service agencies in place take care of their clients. Only one derelict garage remained, and that is the property that the city has leased for the shelter. We have had some street problems with Covenant House Drop In Youths already – not with their live-ins, who have strict curfews. We don’t know what will happen once Low Barrier residents with no curfew and no restrictions hit the area. This is a dangerous mix.

The Emery Barnes Park Community residents are already good neighbours to hundreds of challenged citizens in our area served by social services and supportive housing.  We don’t want the delicate balance of what is working, destroyed.

The claim of the city is that the project is good for the city as a whole, fulfilling a social mandate. This does not give them the right to turn off common sense and place such a facility on the same site that had previously been deemed unsuitable for a problematic facility by then Director of Planning, Larry Beasley 2003. To repeat, the very definition of Low Barrier, allowing alcohol, drugs, behaviour problems and usual street activity so long as it occurs outside of the shelter, inevitably assures our streets and Emery Barnes Park will be negatively impacted, and the rehabilitation efforts of the major social services already serving the homeless on the block, will be compromised.

We understand the city’s commitment to HEAT shelters, as a first step to getting the most resistant and troubled homeless off the street and into care. It is just that the location on Seymour Street is the straw that breaks the camel’s back of this area, victimizing the families who find themselves wedged on all sides by major homeless services – definitely not the intent of the Urban Redevelopment Plan for which Vancouver is famous.

WE have just learned last week that another HEAT shelter has been placed a few blocks away in the 800 block of Richards St.  A workman told us (if true) that the Richards location is for one year only, after which it will be a park. No such assurance has been made about the Seymour site. Even though the city is claiming it is temporary, they admitted they will take a look at it next summer, and are giving no assurance that they will not return to the site next winter, and yet again claim an emergency, and dodge community hearing with a temporary permit. An interesting aside: out of the four HEAT shelters built in the city, 2 of them are in ‘New Yaletown’, while homeless beds are being closed in the East Vancouver.

We are guessing that the owner of 1210 Seymour St. is not planning to redevelop the corner of Seymour and Davie for at least three years, when the company’s current development at 999 Seymour St. is scheduled for completion. The owner has not responded to our requests for a meeting, to let us know first hand his future plans for the site. We will pursue this.

The New Press Release.

Our thanks go out particularly to Clr. George Affleck, who is willing to speak to both our cause and common sense, in the face of a Vision Council that does not appreciate his independence of thought. Sharon Promislow, (me), continues to be the writer, with Erich Hershen a tremendous support. He is going to follow up with phone calls to the media next week, as well as starting to get the new flyers out. We need your help in that regard as well. If any of you have contacts in the media, or magazines, please forward on our release, or pass along the information to us to do so.


The New Flyer

The flyer looks simple, but took a lot of work to create. The committee consisted of Neil Robertson, Jessica Lee Hill, Michael Le Blanc, Erich Hershen, Rob McDowell and myself, and the effort starred our great volunteer graphic designer Cory Dawson of, resident of Eden.

We have printed copies of the new flyers for you to distribute in your building. Just call 604- 696-6279 to pick some up.

If you want to become part of the active core group by offering other skills, just let us know, and we will add you. We meet for an hour about every two weeks.  We have representatives from 7 Strata Councils, and want more buildings and businesses involved. We want to represent all of our neighbourhood. If you are on a Strata Council, an owner or a renter or work in the area, it doesn’t matter. We are all affected by any degradation of our environment.

It is the Association’s mission to attempt to move the shelter location, and in the reality of it opening shortly, to make sure the city takes responsibility for the shelter to protect us, our social service agencies, and the park. We must keep up the pressure, to make sure the city honours what they keep telling us – that this is temporary. In the past they have closed a shelter, and then come back with another temporary permit to carry on the next season.

Links to Raincity, the announced operator of the shelter, have been sent out by the city. Hold them and the city responsible regarding their claims of mitigating the shelter’s effect on the neighbourhood. Each time we see any infraction, we must call the Police at 911 to get an incident number (this was suggested by the police themselves as our only recourse, so don’t feel funny about calling the emergency number). We can also call the city at 311 to record a complaint. It is only by seeing the number of complaints, that the city gets the proof of negative effect, allowing us to push for closure of the facility. THIS WILL BE EVERYONE’S RESPONSIBILITY: Call 911 and/or 311 to report each and every infraction, no matter how slight: smoking on the street within proximity to doors or windows, sitting on private property, littering, loitering, seeing drug use, finding needles or other biological hazardous wastes (don’t touch, but report): Number of reports matter, so do not let it pass. The shelter will ask you to call them, because they don’t want a record of problems. You can call the inside staff as a second response.  First report it to authorities, so there is a growing record of the impact the shelter has made to our area.

At the end of this update, we will put the list of contacts to whom you should write to express your concerns. Express your letters in factual terms of impact to the park and the agencies already doing rehabilitation in the area, plus how many social services are already providing homeless service around us, and any safety issues you may personally feel, particularly if your children feel endangered. Do know that Clrs. Affleck and Carr have not been dismissive of our concerns. It is the Vision Councillors who seem determined to ignore the reality of our case. And for those of you not directly living nearby the facility, who may feel this is not a problem for you, please remember that without any rules of behavior or curfew, the nighttime peace of the residential street is bound to be disturbed for those living closest, so make no assumptions that you know what it is like to live right beside the shelter, 24/7.

At the end of the attached brief are also live links to social media: Our Facebook page and Twitter feed. Please get involved.

Committees continue to pursue avenues of resistance, and we invite you to volunteer by emailing us at We could really use the help of someone adept at organizing communication streams in in gmail.

We also need volunteers researching best placement practices for high-risk facilities: Social work and urban planning sources should have valuable information.

This additional input will further support our evidence of agency oversaturation.

Keep on spreading the word of our protest. We need those letters to keep on reaching the responsible parties, while we continue to educate on why this shelter placement is more harmful to the overall good, than it is beneficial, threatening as it does the work of other homeless rehabilitation services in the immediate area, as well as the Park, and our dense residential neighbourhood.





(Write your letter, then copy, paste and address it to each recipient)

(And copy the Association for our records:

Mayor Gregor Robertson

Councillor George Affleck

Councillor Elizabeth Ball

Councillor Adriane Carr

Councillor Heather Deal

Councillor Kerry Jang

Councillor Raymond Louie

Councillor Geoff Meggs

Councillor Andrea Reimer

Continued next page

Councillor Tim Stevenson

Councillor Tony Tang 

Celine Mauboules                 604-873-7754  

David Autiero:   Project Facilitator                            

Brenda Prosken: General Manager, Community Services

Brian Jackson: General Manager, Planning & Development

Constance Barnes: Parks Board Commissioner               

Please ‘like’ our Facebook page to receive notifications on your Facebook streams:

Residents can also follow us on Twitter:


Assn. Challenges Seymour St. HEAT shelter placement (1) shelter placement protest flyer HOMEPRINT (1)

Speaking of Twitter, their most recent tweet is looking for someone to be in a newspaper photo shoot. Preferably someone with a child.  WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

I sincerely hope I’m not the only Yaletown resident who finds this whole campaign to be completely insane.


3 responses to this post.

  1. I guess they never found “someone with a child” for the photo shoot.


  2. These people never stop. Or, rather, this one person who seems to be the only one sending messages. Those who point out their NIMBY attitude are now apparently “naive.” Read for yourself the latest update I didn’t request but keep receiving anyway:

    UPDATE DEC. 12/12

    Please tune into CKNW AM 980 this morning (Wednesday), at 8:45 a.m.. Sharon will be representing our group on the Bill Good Show, regarding the heat shelter.
    It is important that some of our group be listening, and willing to call in with comment, because we have found the calls that come in traditionally are very uneducated, still accusing us of NIMBY even after our speaking to the saturation of social services in the area, and naïve people buying the city’s line that the shelter will not affect the area, and only be temporary, which we suspect is not true. We need some educated calls to reinforce our message.

    Those of you unable to listen the show at that time, can check out the CKNW news vault on the web to hear it online.

    As is obvious, our approach to the situation with the shelter changes with its opening, to one of wait and see, and report every incident that might impact the area and the park. Very often it is quiet outside the building, which is good news. It is all a matter of timing whether or not you experience outfall, as a few people have been upset by noise and loitering. Now it is up to everyone to scrutinize, and report any misbehavior at 911 for an incident report, and 311 to the city.

    It would be good to drop in to say hello, and remind the workers that the neighbours are counting on them to take care of the block and the park. They evidently have a budget to hire their tenants to do the sweep work. We have had a disturbing letter come in from a resident of Space who could not get their attention to diffuse a scary situation at his entrance to the Space side gate. That points out why we must make sure the workers are responsive to their responsibilities outside the shelter, as we have been promised they would be by RainCity.

    A call to 911 is the suggested response to trouble (the police told us to use it) It will register any complaint you might have, and will allow the police to take care of any problem, so there is no discomfort or risk to yourself. We repeat: CALL 911 FOR ANY INFRACTION, NO MATTER HOW MINOR. IF YOU SEE LOITERING ON THE WALLS OR DOORWAYS OF ADJOINING BUILDINGS, OR SMOKING WITHIN 6 METERS OF THE DOORWAY, OR IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DISRESPECT FROM ANY SHELTER CLIENT THAT MAKES YOU FEEL UNSAFE, CALL.

    What we have accomplished by our intense resistance to the location of the 1210 Seymour shelter:

    A. WE have torn off the sheep’s clothing of the Vision Council, and exposed the undemocratic process in the creation of these shelters. Since 2008, everyone has experienced the same thing: Building in secret, then just before the shelter opens neighbours are told, Emergency…. only spot we could find….. temporary……etc.

    We have not received the city’s supposed reports regarding where the homeless are situated which we requested. We know there are homeless in Vancouver, but doubt the volume is such in our particular area, to justify that two of the four shelters in the City of Vancouver are within five blocks of each other in New Yaletown.

    We did not see the depth and breadth of their supposed intensive search for location. Did they restrict themselves to edge of Yaletown, because the Business community did not want the shelters on a commercial street? (Actually a better location than residential, and where the homeless were most likely spending their time anyway.) We were told agents are sent out, and it is fair to assume that they returned delighted when they found an owner willing to rent to them, and looked no further.

    B. The issue of misrepresentation, or spin put on data In last week’s Province article, and on the Simi Sera show on CKNW Jang has said he will not promise not to return to the same site ‘if it is still available”. We suspect that it will be, as it is logical the developer will not redevelop until the other leases on his assembled property are up in three years, and we guess that this has likely has been discussed by the city upon renting for this year. The property owner has not responded to our calls, letter or emails for a meeting with us about his future plans, to dispel our misgivings.

    Clr. Jang and Vision Council has to be pushed to look for an alternative site now to have on standby for next year. Winter comes every year, and there is no excuse to say that it is a last minute emergency bringing them back to 1210 Seymour St. That didn’t wash this year, and cannot wash next year when they can start looking now.

    C. At this point, the fight clearly becomes political, challenging the Vision Council on its practices, and also questioning the efficacy and safety of current shelter policies. With the shelter just open a few days, we are already receiving some complaints of intimidation by shelter tenants toward our residents, and the workers inside not responding to a request for help.

    My area of expertise in the fight has been, and will continue to be, to point out the total unacceptability of the 1210 Seymour site for the HEAT shelter based on my previous experience having fought against it being used for Social Services before. Erich Hershen and I have created lots of waves, and will continue to do so: to the point that Clr. Jang made a point about a professional media blitz against them. The reality is, the story is newsworthy, because the city has not acted with integrity.

    Now we need people who can question the misuse of Government power, and question the methodology and value of such shelters, to step up to lead us. People with a vested interest in challenging the existing council, should be interested in taking up this challenge. THIS GOES BEYOND THE MEMBERSHIP OF OUR LITTLE ASSOCIATION. WHO DO YOU KNOW WHO WILL STEP IN TO TAKE THIS TO THE NEXT LEVEL, WITH OUR SUPPORT?

    Plus questioning the city about their platitudes – studies they say they have done to prove there is homeless “in our area” such that it necessitated 2 shelters out of the four in the whole city, placed within 5 blocks of each other in New Yaletown. (The shelter at 21st and E 5th says some tenants there have arrived by cab. Hard to believe, but supporting the suspicion of importing tenants from farther away in the city, not close by.)

    A few things that can be done immediately

    1/Someone to request the studies from them under the Freedom of Information Act.” The homeless are located all over the whole of Vancouver South, and we want to know from where they are bringing them to us. Definitely there are some homeless in old Yaletown, but when questioned I have been told many of those wouldn’t go into a shelter, not feeling safe there.

    2/Something else to be done: we need book learning about best placement principles from schools of urban planning, and social work, and /or bylaws in other cities anywhere in the western world, that support the best placement principles quoted in our last press release, which of course the papers never pickup.

    3/We need to question everything they claim about the effectiveness of the shelters operation: how many homeless are still on the street, who won’t come in: The claim that supervisors in the shelters are trained in special techniques to treat the homeless: (When I went in, I found two former street youth in charge, who definitely know many of the clients, and have instructions of who to call if it gets out of hand. However, we don’t know what else they are trained to do to encourage the street people into permanent homes.)

    Many communities are in an uproar over affordable (some of it supportive?) housing being thrust oversized in their neighbourhoods. (Dunbar is a good example of being angry.) Of course we know that zoning must change in Vancouver to accommodate growth, but it must be done in consultation with the community: Not just calling a meeting to tell the citizens what you are going to do, but to hear the citizens, and not just to hear – an empty exercise, but to LISTEN. I have also gotten a phone call from tenants in supportive housing, saying behaviour inside them is out of control, with residents being accosted, and it not being a well supervised, safe situation. This is housing for which the tenants pay a share, and not a shelter. What a rabbit hole.

    We need someone with some social service background, who doesn’t have a conflict of interest, to question on our part the whole continuum of services to the homeless, and not accept pat answers. There seems to be a huge self perpetuating social service industry, with multi millions of dollars being spent, most of it effectively we are sure, but some of it to be questioned for efficacy. Is warehousing of homeless for 5 months, as is happening here, for a cost of minimally $2,200 per month per bed, the most effective way of helping? ($400,000 operating costs divided by 40 equals $10,000 operating costs per bed for the 5 months, plus a share of the remodeling costs done by the city, guestimating that it had to cost much more than $40,000 to refit the garage for human habitation, but minimally amortizing a share of that figure $1,000.00 per bed, or $200. per bed a month 5 months. Who can determine the absolute, actual cost of all this?

    Is there a disability pension received by the homeless? I know it is hard for them to receive it, when having no address. Who has information on this? Is there a better way that all this societal investment should be used to better serve both the homeless, and also respect the efforts of the tax paying citizens to create a comfortable urban neighbourhood? How do you treat the cause, rather than the symptom?

    Lastly, we have to all get REALLY involved in the next civic election in two years, and make sure it is not a solid Vision council. Currently, Clr. George Affleck is very sensible, and Adrienne Carr is open to facts, whereas the rest are a solid party line, with the admirable mandate of ending homelessness as their first priority, but with no consultation and setting up guidelines with the communities they impact, and with no consideration of the former mandate under the previous administration, which had drawn us to live downtown – LIVEABILITY in a diverse neighbourhood. In the case of the Seymour Street Shelter location, it has tipped the block from a diverse residential street, into a Social Services enclave.

    Someone mentioned we are invited to a meeting in early January. Who has this information? I have missed it. In the meantime, drop in to see the shelter. They have invited us to do so. I did this before they had many residents. It is all one big space, just like in the Metro News picture with a maze of mattresses on the floor. I can’t imagine sleeping in such close quarters, or if sleep is possible with no curfews, a TV area planned for one corner, people chatting at tables, and, supported by sound we have heard on the street, people coming and going all night.

    We must keep up our pressure. There was an interview on the Simi Sara Show, which you can access by going to CKNW and clicking on their radio vault for Dec. 4, 2 p.m. I was on at 2:05, and after a commercial break, Clr. Jang was on. Ms. Sara asked him a few good questions, the most important one, after Clr. Jang once again flew the “temporary” banner, she pushed it, asking if they would return to the site again, and he affirmed that they would if there was the need, and if the site was still available. Based on experience we know that there is always a need, and suspect the site will be available for at least the next three to four years, so that is all the more reason for you all to get involved, and get your neighbours to sign up to receive our mail out, and to send letters to the city.

    So who is willing to step up for this stage? I must return to my own life, willing to support, but not to be the point person, nor the media voice on issues with which I am not conversant. This is NOW POLITICAL, not just neighbours upset with bad placement of a shelter. (Even though we will continue to fight this). Who is interested in political brownie points?

    At this point, as mentioned, it gets bigger than our one shelter. I have been contacted now with the next door neighbour of the shelter at 21 east 5th, where there was the same story of no-one knowing the shelter was being built – not even the police- and where already needles are appearing, and our contact saw a beating.

    His name is Brad Wood. 604-873-4454. Shop right next to shelter at 21st & East 5th.

    I am sending him our information. At this point, it proves it doesn’t matter that we had a just cause not to have it on our block: it is bigger than that, and a fight against the bad governance of Vision council, period. I am not the person to lead that fight. Who do you know who is?

    Our new “partners” beside the 21st and E.5th shelter have a lot to bring to the table. The next door neighbour Brad, is a photographer, and two doors down from that, is a moviemaker. They are documenting what is going on around their shelter.

    Once again, we mention having great new handouts, which we want to put into your hands and purses, to share with neighbours who will want to know how to contact us. That is how you can help: Keep on educating our community. It is our job to let the city know we care, and won’t stop caring. The opening of the shelter was a given: Now we must fight to keep it from negatively affecting our neighbourhood, and work to assure its departure as promised: Temporary, NOT seasonal. If they try to bring it back, it has to go through due process of development board hearing.

    Spread our email address: for information, handouts and to sign up to our update list.

    And once again, please write to city hall with any complaints and your experiences now that the shelter has opened. Hopefully, you will not be unduly affected. Many will, particularly those living right next to it.


    3. Please ‘like’ our Facebook page to receive notifications on your Facebook streams:

    4. Residents can also follow us on Twitter:


    (Write your letter, then copy, paste and address it to each recipient)

    (And copy the Association for our records:

    Mayor Gregor Robertson 604-873-7621
    Councillor George Affleck 604-873-7248
    Councillor Elizabeth Ball 604-873-7240
    Councillor Adriane Carr 604-873-7245
    Continued next page
    Councillor Heather Deal 604-873-7242
    Councillor Kerry Jang 604-873-7246
    Councillor Raymond Louie 604-873-7242
    Councillor Geoff Meggs 604-873-7249
    Councillor Andrea Reimer 604-873-7241
    Councillor Tim Stevenson 604-873-7247
    Councillor Tony Tang 604-873-7244
    Celine Mauboules 604-873-7754
    David Autiero: Project Facilitator
    Brenda Prosken: General Manager, Community Services
    Brian Jackson: General Manager, Planning & Development
    Constance Barnes: Parks Board Commissioner


  3. […] Glimpsing their mania from their mailing list, they instruct recipients to call 911 for, […]


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: