Inspection statistics, ordinance change information
I have been asked by a number of folks to provide the updated environmental inspection and rental housing code statistics.
HOUSING INSPECTION STATISTICS
In the most recent fiscal year (ending 6-30-07) - Four inspectors completed 2472 total housing inspections in 4700 units. The rental inspections added up to 779 inspections in 2216 units. The weed inspections were 2578.
In the prior fiscal year (7-1-05 through 6-30-06) - 14 inspectors completed 4754 total housing inspections in 9823 units. The rental inspections added up to 1738 inspections in 5136 units. The weed inspections were 2125.
Moving forward, eight inspectors will be doing this work.
ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION STATISTICS
In the most recent fiscal year (ending 6-30-07) - Public Works staff sent 5244 environmental notice letters and performed 1376 clean ups.
In the prior fiscal year, the numbers totaled 1914 environmental notice letters and 800 clean ups.
Additional info on the Environmental Inspections - click here.
::::::
I have also been asked to post the ordinance change, re: the rental dwelling definition, to review - click here.
To summarize, the before and after for this change, I have outlined a few bullet points:
* Prior to this ordinance passing, no contract sales were subject to regular rental inspection cycles
* Now, when less than 3% is put down - they are subject to regular rental inspection cycles
* Prior to the ordinance passing, all "rent to owns" were inspected
* This ordinance does take the "rent to owns" out of inspection, when the occupant places 3% down
* All of these properties are still subject to: housing code enforcement (all complaints will be inspected)
* All of these properties are still subject to: nuisance abatement ordinances
* This ordinance, in theory, will place more focus on the "rent to owns" where the least amount of money is being placed down by the occupant
Obviously, at the very least, we need to monitor this program closely and work with the DFD. We should evaluate the pros/cons for the time being and move forward from there. Let me know of any other questions and concerns.
posted by Ian Frink @ 7:10 PM
66 comments
66 Comments:
Ian - you vote for this ordinance demostrates a lack of empathy and understanding of the issues facing our urban areas of Davenport. The ordinance is a bad one. It needs to be repealed.
Thank you.
I disagree. With this ordinance, we can now inspect nothing down contracts.
It looks to me like we are overdoing the environmental inspections. I have heard a lot of complaints, including one where the city (perhaps illegally) picked up 4 pieces of firewood that the homeowner was storing in his yard to use in his fireplace this winter. Not only did the City pick up the firewood, but they charged the homeowner $231 for doing so.
Stuff like this has got to stop.
The City, no matter how well meaning, is overreaching. We need to put some common sense into environmental enforcement.
Ian can you look into this?
Dan, this crap isn't working. Anyone who has gotten a letter from the enviro. inspectors knows that they first, send a letter with a picture of the "debris" in question, then the inspectors return 7 days latter to reinspect, take another picture and pursue the cleanup. Then, the trash guys take another picture of what they picked up. You can't say that you weren't given ample time to clean up after your tenants. Give up, your a scum bag slumlord!
Ian, I know that you don't know the past history of the rent to own lack of inspections. I can tell you that the slumlords preyed on people who had the most to lose. The people in those houses were told that if they walked away from the property they would be in a credit situation where they wouldn't be able to rent or buy a home and would be homeless. With this ordiance the slumlords can dump their worst property of little value for a small downpayment and avoid rental inspections. They can also avoid rental background checks and many of the other things that are part of the rental protection for neighborhoods. I know you don't know it, but this is an awful thing that happened to the central city. Had it not been moved through in such a way that even people who were the council meetings were unware of what was happening, I can promise you there would have been an uproar from the neighborhood groups. Bill Lynn moved this through very quietly without discussion.
what a pack of lies. get a life Wally.
Ian - this is a huge mistake. We need to inspect all rent to owns - especially ones that are not recorded. Please repeal this. This will become a campaign issue.
Ian, Wally is being ridiculous. Everyone knows the rent to own and contract sales properties in this town that have large downpayments have excellent inspection records. It is time to let your ordinance work and start focusing on inspecting the nothing down and low down contract sales.
Ok, so now as 10:33 said you can inspect nothing down contracts. How exactly are you claiming that the city even knows about these so they can inspect them? I've sold a property on contract in the city, and the document was recorded, and I insisted on an inpection, but when and where are you claiming that the city becomes aware of these? Are you actually saying that the City has staff that monitor every document recorded and then have legal department review every recorded document and have the fire department inspect every property that is sold on contract in the City. Come on, this ordinance will lead to no additional properties being inspected. Whether you realize it or not the way that the ordinance was changed and the ordinance itself are just more evasion of safe affordable housing in the city.
hey Jennifer, this ordinance gives the City authority to go and inspect every property sold with less then 3% down with seller financing, whether the properties are sold on contract or not. It is easy to get a list of properties sold on contract. A list of contract sales is provided by the auditor upon request for a minimal charge and this can easily be kept current on request.
I don't know if staff will embrace this tool and inspect every single property sold with less then 3% down (there are many), however they now have the right to do so. Now the staff has more authority to go into these properties if they are run down. And by the way, if there could have been an inclusion of zero down mortgages, that would have been nice too. The recent rash of 200+ foreclosures were almost entirely zero down.
That argument is ludicrous. Comparing substandard homes sold on contract to mortgage loans. Come on mortgage loans, although yes the predatory aspects are leading to what could be catastrophic economic effects throughout the country, are still mortgage loans. Every mortgage lender will tell you that a mortgage is #1 regulated by the state division of banking and multiple other agencies locally and nationally. A mortgage loan requires disclosures (lead, mold, and a sellers disclosure of all property conditions), a truth in lending, a good faith estimate, an appraisal which indicates visible code violations, a federal document which notifies the buyer that they are entitled to inspect said property prior to the purchase, and many other protections for the buyer. If you would like to compare the two maybe you would like to agree that all of these documents should be required in every real estate sale, including contracts. But that's not going to happen because the properties COULD NOT withstand the scrutiny. You are going way out on a limb there, and your assumption that I am Jennifer is also incorrect.
Perhaps we could have an ordiance that hold rent to own or contract sales to the same standards as mortage companies, lead, mold, etc. checks.
Hey 11:33 and 9:54, otherwise known as Shelly. You are pretty unaware of the law, given your suppossed knowledge of this business. You draw the conclusion that contract sales would never come under similar regulation to mortgage lending because the "properties COULD NOT withstand the scrutiny". Well guess what, they are under the pretty much the exact same type of scrutiny, with the exception of the appraisal requirement. That is required by state law of EVERY sale of property for contract sellers that sell more then 5 properties per year. LOOK IT UP before you pose as an expert! But, I have news...there are even MORE disclosures required...such as the assessed values and unpaid taxes and the disclosure that a seller should have both an attorney and an independent home inspection done prior to closing. And, I have news...apraisals are rarely accurate and rarely disclose visible code violations and that is why there is a housing crisis. So, do your homework next time before you make unsubstantiated claims. You may apologize, and I will accept your apology graciously. I am waiting...
Dan - go away please. You are so wrong about this and so are your candidates that you are scaring - Ian included. Ian - show us that you are a good representative of the people and repeal this thing now. Not after the election. Stand up for what is right.
Ian, paranoid people like the last poster at 11:45 pm share one thing in common, they cannot refute an argument with facts, so they rely on baseless allegations. The poster is somewhat ignorant of real estate sales in general, claiming that only properties sold with mortgages require certain disclosures like a lead paint disclosure and a sellers disclosure of all property conditions. In reality, the lead paint disclosure
requirement is a federal law which
affects all real estate sold (including contract sales and cash sales and even rent to own sales) and the seller's disclosure is a state law which affects all real estate sold (accept real estate repossessed and sold by a lender).
Now, by simply quoting the fact that Iowa law already satisfies almost all of Shelly's list of disclosure requirements (and exceeds it in other areas), you are supposed to be scared. Of what, I don't know. Of course that is silly, but rather then get into such a juvenile discussion, I will post the exact list of disclosure requirements under Iowa law. It is covered under Chapter 1136, section 558.70 which has been part of Iowa state law since April 26, 2002.
Here is that state law:
CHAPTER 1136
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE INSTALLMENT CONTRACTS —
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
CH 1136 Sec 1
Section 1. NEW SECTION . 558.70 CONTRACT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE INSTALLMENT SALES.
1. Prior to executing a residential real estate installment sales contract, the contract seller shall deliver a written contract disclosure statement to the contract purchaser which shall clearly set forth the following information:
a. If the real estate subject to the contract has been separately assessed for property tax purposes, the current assessed value of the real estate.
b. (1) A complete description of any property taxes due and payable on the real estate and a complete description of any special assessment on the real estate and the term of the assessment.
(2) Information on whether any property taxes or special assessments are delinquent and whether any tax sale certificates have been issued for delinquent property taxes or special assessments on the real estate.
c. A complete description of any mortgages or other liens encumbering or secured by the real estate, including the identity and address of the current owner of record with respect to each such mortgage or lien, as well as a description of the total outstanding balance and due date under any such mortgage or lien.
d. A complete amortization schedule for all payments to be made pursuant to the contract, which amortization schedule shall include information on the portion of each payment to be applied to principal and the portion to be applied to interest.
e. If the contract requires a balloon payment, a complete description of the balloon payment, including the date the payment is due, the amount of the balloon payment, and other terms related to the balloon payment. For purposes of this paragraph, a “balloon payment” is any scheduled payment that is more than twice as large as the average of earlier scheduled payments.
f. The annual rate of interest to be charged under the contract.
g. A statement that the purchaser has a right to seek independent legal counsel concerning the contract and any matters pertaining to the contract.
h. A statement that the purchaser has a right to receive a true and complete copy of the contract after it has been executed by all parties to the contract.
i. The mailing address of each party to the contract.
j. If the contract is subject to forfeiture, a statement that if the purchaser does not comply with the terms of the contract, the purchaser may lose all rights in the real estate and all sums paid under the contract.
2. The contract disclosure statement shall be dated and signed by each party to the contract, and the contract purchaser shall be provided a complete copy of the contract at the time the disclosure statement is delivered to the contract purchaser pursuant to subsection 1.
3. Within five days after a residential real estate installment sales contract has been executed by all parties to the contract, the contract seller shall mail a true and correct copy of the contract by regular first class mail to the last known address of each contract purchaser. However, this requirement is satisfied as to any purchaser who acknowledges in writing that the purchaser has received a true and correct copy of the fully executed contract.
4. This section applies to a contract seller who entered into four or more residential real estate contracts in the three hundred sixty-five days previous to the contract seller signing the contract disclosure statement. For purposes of this subsection, two or more entities sharing a common owner or manager are considered a single contract seller. This section does not apply to an organization listed in section 535B.2, subsections 1 through 12.
5. A violation of this section affects title to property only as provided in section 558.71.
6. For purposes of this section, “residential real estate” means a residential dwelling containing no more than two single-family dwelling units, which is not located on a tract of land used for agricultural purposes as defined in section 535.13.
7. This section and any rules adopted to administer this section shall not limit or abridge any duty, requirement, obligation, or liability for disclosure created by any other provision of law, or under a contract between the parties.
CH 1136 Sec 2
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION . 558.71 CIVIL LIABILITIES.
1. A contract purchaser injured by a violation of section 558.70 may within one year of the execution of the contract bring an equitable action in the district court of record where the real estate is located to obtain relief as follows:
a. The court may rescind a contract that remains in existence at the time the action is commenced, and award restitution to the contract purchaser determined in accordance with the standards for damages specified in paragraph “b”.
b. If the contract has been terminated by any means prior to commencement of the action, the contract purchaser may recover a money judgment against the original contract seller for a sum equal to all amounts the contract purchaser paid to the contract seller, plus the reasonable value of any improvements to the real estate made by the contract purchaser, plus any other proximately caused or incidental damages, less the fair rental value of the real estate for the period of time the contract purchaser was in possession of the real estate. For the purposes of this paragraph, the fair rental value of the real estate shall be based on the fair rental value of the real estate as of the date the real estate installment sales contract was executed by all parties to the contract.
2. A contract purchaser alleging a violation of section 558.70 bears the burden of establishing such violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. An order of recision or a money judgment awarded shall not affect any rights or responsibilities arising from any conveyance or encumbrance made by either the contract purchaser or the contract seller prior to the filing of a lis pendens in the action in which such relief is sought, unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the recipient of such conveyance or encumbrance had prior knowledge that the contract was executed in violation of the requirements of section 558.70 .
4. In an action in which a contract purchaser obtains relief under this section, the court shall also award to such contract purchaser reasonable attorney fees incurred in bringing the action.
CH 1136 Sec 3
Sec. 3. Section 558.46, Code 2001, is amended by adding the following new subsection:
NEW SUBSECTION . 7. If a contract seller is subject to the requirements of section 558.70 , the contract must be recorded within forty-five days rather than one hundred eighty days and the recording requirement is only satisfied by recording the real estate contract rather than a memorandum of the contract.
CH 1136 Sec 4
Sec. 4. Section 558A.4, Code 2001, is amended by adding the following new subsection:
NEW SUBSECTION . 3. A transferor subject to the requirements of section 558.70 shall recommend in writing that the transferee obtain an independent home inspection report to provide full and complete information as required to be disclosed under this section and under rules adopted by the real estate commission pursuant to section 543B.9.
A transferor subject to section 558.70 shall provide the real estate disclosure statement required by this chapter at least seven days before the real estate installment sales contract is executed by all parties to the contract.
CH 1136 Sec 5
Sec. 5. Section 714.8, Code 2001, is amended by adding the following new subsection:
NEW SUBSECTION . 20. A contract seller who intentionally provides inaccurate information with regard to any matter required to be disclosed under section 558.70 , subsection 1, or section 558A.4.
CH 1136 Sec 6
Sec. 6. APPLICABILITY DATE. This Act applies to residential real estate installment sales contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this Act by contract sellers who entered into four or more residential real estate installment sales contracts in the three hundred sixty-five days previous to a contract entered into on or after the effective date of this Act.
Approved April 26, 2002
Oh my that is Dan - the only man benefiting from the bad ordinance passing.
Again - most of this bickering is pointless you will never change the image Dan has of himself in his own head, or Wally for that matter. But for those of you who are tired of hearing the argument anyway - VOTE!
Okay - but vote for who?
Frink (sorry Ian) voted for this bad policy change and so did the rest of them. I want to know why Ian you voted for this. Why.
What about this do you like? How will it help the central city?
Ian - did you read what your fire and police chiefs have to say about the ordinance you support? Did you ask for their opinion before voting for it? Wouldn't it make sense to have done that?
Shelly is no expert - she ducks out on her own obligations and lives in a dump that makes her neighbors crazy.
FYI
Update: a motion was made tonight to require recording of all contract sales at the county courthouse. It was also moved that the Crime Free Multi-Housing Class would still be required. These amendments will be on Wednesday's agenda. Both Fire Chief Frese and PD Capt. Murphy supported this move.
Those of us not on the Public Safety, first sat through a public meeting (on this topic) - with this on the consent agenda. The only time this issue was a discussion item was the First Reading - Public Safety committee.
Hopefully, these changes will be a step in the right direction.
Ian
No they aren't - this needs to be repealed all together Ian. We still do not have the man power to appropriately staff this thing. You know that. Repeal it.
Why ammend the ordinance, why not make all contract sales, and rent to own subject to rental inspections, or make the buyer receive real disclosures through a mortgage loan. either or
better yet, let's inspect all property. There are plenty of properties with mortgage that are in deplorable condition. Those of us who own our own homes with a mortgage should not be afraid of city inspections.
We could assess each homeowner an annual fee, plus an inspection fee the same as renters.
This would prevent many needless deaths - such as children falling out of windows without screens or not being able to escape in the event of a fire from illegal bedrooms in the basement.
To the poster that accused the guy with the firewood complaint of being Dan. Well guess what, at Committee of the Whole on Monday a gentlemen by the name of Van Willows, 1st ward got up and spoke. Turned out it was his firewood and that he ownes his own home - it was not a rental or a rent to own.
The best way to do this is to inspect every home and charge a fee to every homeowner. Lets invite government inspection everywhere, and let the chips fall where they may. If we aren't hiding anything, what are we afraid of?
No - bad idea, but what we should do is cite people who have obvious violatiions of the housing code. Chipping paint and stuff.
Frink - I was with you up until now, this makes no sense. I wonder what you were thinking.
Common goal should be trying to better the housing stock in Davenport, right? Why not make it mandatory that all of these "rent to owns" pass city inspection before being recorded. That would knock down the blight within the city and demand those flipping houses to improving the properties first. Just a thought.
If common goal is better housing stock, why would we want to single out an entire class of people? The inspection records show we are wasting time inspecting properties and where the stakeholders have a financial interest (rent to owns and contract sales with 3% or more down). Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on property that is in need of repair?
If the property that you refer to is as good as you say it is, then why does it matter? It will pass anyway. Right?
Of course it would pass. That is not the point. The point is all about concentrating inspection resources on areas that they are actually needed, and not wasting tax dollars and precious time.
That's not really the point.....is it? You just don't like spending money trying to keep your property up to code. Shame on you for lying.
This is not a perfect world and no one has unlimited resources. Therefore, there must always be a balancing act. On the one hand is the right of privacy and for people to be left to themselves in their own homes. On the other hand, there is the government's interest in protecting people from others, and maybe even from themselves.
In a perfect world, all homes would be in excellent condition. If you believed that it was the government's duty to make sure that people at least lived in decent conditions, they would inspect all homes. There is nothing particular about rental properties, mortgaed properties, contracts for deed or rent to own propterites that means that they are the only ones that can cause problems. However, the state of Iowa government has decided, in this less than perfect world, that the public will not tolerate nor be willing to pay the resources needed to inspect all homes, and that since homeowner's are more likely to look out for the quality and safety of their own homes than Landlord's, that only rental properties should be inspected. Some would argue that this is a reasonable distinction - even though some may disagree with this distinction.
It seems to me that those homeowners that have put a large amount down (3% or more) are stakeholders and have a PROVEN track record of taking care of their homes. The rent to own homes in question have already proven to be almost perfect in their inspection history, having gone through hundreds of inspections without ever turning up a serious issue. They should be exempted unless their is proof to the contrary that they should be exempted.
The only folks supporting this 3% deal is a few bad alderman and the predatory lenders from Bettendorf. Which one are you?
8:46,
I am working on finding a better resolution, which may require going back to the drawing board. I have meetings set up for later in the week to try and drive towards a more desirable outcome. I'll know more soon.
Ian
Ian,
Thanks for all your work on this issue. I think that if all the stake-holders sit down at the table we can come up with a solution that will work for our city. This ordiance needs to be addressed in depth. Thanks again for your leadership.
Loxi Hopkins
Quad Cities Interfaith
Hey Loxi - Ask why he voted for this in the first place. Is that great leadership - really?
I like Ian - but I question whether he can screen bad policy. I want a council with people who can figure this stuff out and make good decisions.
I agree - that fact that you Ian missed this in the first place tells me that you need to get intouch with the central city issues. You say you are, but this is really aggregious.
Ian - can you clarify for us howe this ordinance change was presented and why you voted to support it? Thank you.
This was a good ordinance change. It made good use of City resources by allowing staff to focus on things that need to be inspected, at the same time helping to clarify true home ownership by forcing recordation of real sales that should not be inspected. Ian should be praised, not attacked, for his vote on this issue.
I'm not so sure any of the aldermen should be praised for missing this ordiance, but I do think it says something, when someone rectifies a mistake. I would be looking to the aldermen that voted against tabeling this. They are the ones that we should be critical of. Or how about the ones that didn't even bother to show up for the work session.
FYI - RTO ordinance update
At today's meeting, I directed Legal to place a reconsideration of the amendment changes on the agenda for next cycle. If the reconsideration succeeds, we would move back to the ordinance that was in place before August of this year.
That ordinance is more closely aligned with what is on the books in other IA cities like: Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines.
It sounds like interest exists to form a citizen committee to review any potential tweaks down the road.
::
As for the reasoning behind voting on this the first time through: I followed the favorable recommendation of the public safety committee (which I am not a part of) and their desire to place this on the consent agenda. Items that are on the consent agenda are not typically discussed at the council level, therefore I was never in attendance for discussion. In hindsight, I wish this had been on the discussion agenda.
Ian
I guess now that you learned a lesson, you will be very weary of those on the safety committee. Sometime the best learned lesson is a hard lesson. If this change is resended, you will have my vote back.
Ian, beware of annonymous philosiphers offering sage advice.
And more so, the slumlords from the QCRAP trying to hijack your blog site.
No 5:11, the danger is the misconception about this ordinance. Ian did a good thing voting for it in the first place, since it made it possible to inspect contract sales with nothing or very low downpayments. Good job Ian!
Thanks for your public service announcement Dan. Go play with your auto dialer.
Sorry, I am not Dan. Go play with your campaign signs Wally, they aren't good for much now anyway.
Ian has moved to retract this ordinance - good job Ian. Hopefully you and Olsen can hold the line on the slumlords. Ian has demonstrated that he is smart when it comes to Lubell and the agenda. He has been a strong voice in the anti-slum movement and Lubell needs to be worried about him. I have talked with Ian and he does nto support this rent to own thing. Good Job Ian.
That is false. Ian has not moved to retract this. I have talked with Ian and he is NOT anti rent to own or contract sales. Keep up the good work Ian.
We know you had a private meeting with Ian to see if you could buy him. Did it work Dan?
Keep saying it Dan :
Ian is not against rent to own, he's not against rent to own, he's not against rent to own. Now click your heals three times, spin around and spit.
DAN - I have talked with Ian recently and he is concerned about the rent to own. Your stalking hasn't worked.
This is not Dan, but you are obviously overly concerned, posting one minute apart with no substance to your posts. Ian is looking for a fair balance, he is not against programs that work.
The fact is that the "rent to owns" were put back on the rental inspection list voluntarily and at the suggestion of First Financial until a compromise ordinance could be reached. This is the only way it could be done without formally repealing or amending the ordinance.
UPDATE -
FYI
I have received a few questions on the RTO topic and I wanted to post a review from last night.
- The reconsideration of the 3% amendment has been tabled
- First Financial has agreed to keep their RTO's on the inspection cycle
- A representative citizen committee will be formed to review the ordinance and will bring forward a new recommendation to the council (this process may take 2-3 months)
This interim compromise resulted from a meeting with First Financial, the city attorney, and the city fire chief. We will move forward from here.
Ian
(Let me know of any other questions)
Ian, thank you for posting so that people know that this was reached in the spirit of compromise and that in fact my company, First Financial, suggested that we voluntarily agree to inspections in the interm. This is what makes good government... people working together to find solutions.
Ian - you are acting like a chump here. First Financial is part of the public - you have NO business meeting privately with those who operate unethically in this city. YOu should refuse to meet with Dan Lubell. Was he the only rent to own company invited? YOu are acting inappropriately. Can every citizen request an individual meeting with you now over this issue?
2:23 -
The meeting was held because I would like a better ordinance.
We have an opportunity to use a citizen committee to bring recommendations forward for what they want. We will look at other best practices from other communities. Our attorney and fire chief will participate.
In the interim, First Financial agreed to put the RTO's back into the inspection cycle.
At this point, this is the direction our fire chief would like to move and I was simply trying to facilitate that move by holding a meeting.
If individuals contact me and would like to meet on a given topic, I try and set something up. I do this on many issues.
Ian
My point is that why is it First Financial's choice. Ian - you were not around for the tireless rent to own (predatory lending) issues years ago. The city needs to be in charge, not the groups that take advantage of our most vulnerable citizens. Take back the power Ian and focus on the people who you represent.
It appears to the community that you are being controlled by First Financial. That is bad - especially around election time. I suggest that you read up on the history of predatory lending, look into the Taxpayers United PAC and the activities of Mr. Lubell and the record of his Attorney (who was disbarred several years ago for sex crimes). There is more to all this then you are aware. You have the responsibility to represent the people, not the criminals and the underbelly. Yes - Dan Lubell was also in trouble a while ago for a phone type of scam. How is this all looking for you do you think? Better question - how is it looking for those of us living near these crappy rent to owns?
Ian, this is not Dan Lubell, but I want to comment since I have actually purchased a home from First Financial. These accusations against them are not true. As Dan has said many times, just look at their inspection record. My home was in wonderful condition! The person posting all of this garbage is none other then convicted fellon, Walter Skovronski who did hard time in the penn for his crimes, and he has crappy houses that fail inspections regularly. That is who you should be careful of talking to.
What is the address? Do you still own the property or what? I want to check it out.
Google the folks from the QCRPA. Look for your self
Okay - but how do I know that this is the address of the guy who is posting. Hey - guy - do you still have your contract. If you do, let's put this thing to bed and take a look see at it in order to help put the matter to an end. I the company doesn't rip people off, post the contract.
I’m currently being held prisoner by the Russian mafia [url=http://www.buypenisenlargement.com]penis enlargement[/url] penis enlargement and being forced to post spam comments on blogs and forum! If you don’t approve this they will kill me. [url=http://www.male-sexual-styles.com]penis enlargement[/url] penis enlargement They’re coming back now. [url=http://vimax3-4.com]vimax[/url] vimax Please send help! nitip [url=http://www.male-sexual.com]penis enlargement[/url] penis enlargement
Post a Comment
<< Home