Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gothamist)   How one crazy, old, unemployed Ph.D turned his rent stabilized Manhattan hovel into $17 million   (gothamist.com) divider line 158
    More: Hero, Ph.D., Manhattan, Herb Sukenik, Central Park West, Mayflower Hotel, Central Park South, MRIs, Mayflower  
•       •       •

26858 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Mar 2014 at 9:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-02 10:33:31 PM  
this is an example of how every marriage and government program should have a mandatory 7 year self destruction aspect.
 
2014-03-02 10:34:09 PM  

organizmx: I live in a historic town filled with NYC commuters, so I just came in here to say fark developers to hell.


A developer built what you currently live in.
 
2014-03-02 10:34:11 PM  

Manfred J. Hattan: bunner: In other news, you can oink up 17,000,000.00 for a small apartment and still make a profit off of people who want to live in an ant farm.

What a $65 MM ant farm may look like.


Now with ugly assed ceiling lights and hot and cold running elitism!
 
2014-03-02 10:35:53 PM  
FTA :

Will Zeckendorf describes Sukenik as "a nightmare. Hugely intelligent, a Ph.D., unmarried, embittered, a loner, disconnected from society, and too smart for his own good. "

What was his FARK handle?
 
2014-03-02 10:39:43 PM  

strangeluck: So being a bitter old douchebag with a good memory can get you millions of dollars?

I can't wait to grow old!


... are those new slacks?
 
2014-03-02 10:43:19 PM  

fusillade762: In the movie version John Malkovitch will play the crusty hermit. But we'll need a young Hispanic maid with a tragic back story who softens his rough edges and makes him see the beauty in life. Somebody get Demi Lovato on the phone.


Yeah, because everybody wants to see Demi Lovato's tits and John Malkovitch's O-face in the same scene.
 
2014-03-02 10:43:32 PM  

bunner: Manfred J. Hattan: bunner: In other news, you can oink up 17,000,000.00 for a small apartment and still make a profit off of people who want to live in an ant farm.

What a $65 MM ant farm may look like.

Now with ugly assed ceiling lights and hot and cold running elitism!


Because real Muricans, live in vinyl clad freedom masions, out in Particle Board Estates.
 
2014-03-02 10:44:38 PM  
Good for him.
 
2014-03-02 10:46:00 PM  

Emposter: Except, as I pointed out, he didn't need or even really want the money. So he wasted between one and two years of the last 9 years of his life living it a construction zone because he was too smart to accept the earlier offer, and held out for an even larger amount that he apparently didn't want or need. That sounds too smart for his own good to me.


Then you don't know what the phrase means.  And yes, he obviously did want it, otherwise he would have simply taken the earlier offer and went on with his life.

I would spend a year in a "construction zone" to gain a profit of $17 million.  This is not self-defeating, crazy, "too smart for you own good", or even unreasonable.  It was a smart move in the long run.  Now he can live anywhere he wants.
 
2014-03-02 10:46:09 PM  

KAVORKA: Come on, there ought to be a rule where they can give him 10 years in a rent-free, comparable apartment.  Or something like that.  He basically extorted them, how does this help anybody except him?


Yeah it sucks when people can't just take your shiat whenever they want.
 
2014-03-02 10:46:15 PM  

mutterfark: [ilarge.listal.com image 685x385]


Beautiful. I don't know that I've seen a reference to that on Fark before.
 
2014-03-02 10:49:10 PM  

ReverendJasen: Starshines: I don't see why there should be any hate for this guy at all.  He played the game like a master and got a nice little payday from some douche bag Manhattan real estate developers who will just pass the cost along to their ultra rich clients who won't even notice already sold the building one of the apartments in the building for $88 million.

ftfy.  I don't feel bad for them one iota.  I have an entire field of no-farks planted.


FTFBoY
 
2014-03-02 10:49:59 PM  
Hero? This was asshole vs. assholes.
 
2014-03-02 10:52:35 PM  
Only in socialist paradise NY can someone with no ownership of private property dictate its use.

/rent stabbers can die in hell
 
2014-03-02 10:53:03 PM  
He's not a hero, he's a dick. He needlessly antagonized these guys until they gave in to his outrageous demands.
 
2014-03-02 10:53:52 PM  

oldtaku: Hero? This was asshole vs. assholes.


Little asshole vs great big assholes.  Little asshole won for a change.
 
2014-03-02 10:55:10 PM  

InterruptingQuirk: FTFBoY


Farking Christ on moped.  My field of no farks to give just blossomed into a continent of them.  In fact, these rich assholes owe me some farks now for even having had to hear their story.
 
2014-03-02 10:57:33 PM  

StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.




I know, have you the hell hole Manhattan has become? SOHO? Greenwich Village? Park Slopes? He'll holes, pure hell holes.

/you forgot to mention the tax abatement the developer received.
 
2014-03-02 11:00:09 PM  

Make More Hinjews: ... using this one old, weird tip?


Just the tip.
 
2014-03-02 11:07:57 PM  

a particular individual: Make More Hinjews: ... using this one old, weird tip?

Just the tip.


Or think of it as a fit test
 
2014-03-02 11:09:06 PM  
I couldn't have come up with a world where owners of buildings can't charge whatever they want for use of their buildings. These little glimpses of places like New York are like windows into alternate realities for me. It seems so incredibly... wrong and counterintuitive to say "So, you OWN this, but you can't use it however you want."
 
2014-03-02 11:11:48 PM  
Lemme guess: did he use this one weird trick the real estate companies don't want you to know about?

/discovered by a mom
//yes, I realize I'm late to the party
///suck it
////suck it long and hard
 
2014-03-02 11:13:35 PM  

OgreMagi: organizmx: I live in a historic town filled with NYC commuters, so I just came in here to say fark developers to hell.

A developer built what you currently live in.




Yeah, in 1890, as rentals actually, but he did it without knocking down existing buildings, and they were built with a ton of care and attention to architectural detail. They're still striking and in fashion 120 years later.

Developers today buy homes like mine, bulldoze them, and put up cheap condos which blight otherwise beautiful historic neighborhoods.
 
2014-03-02 11:15:08 PM  

fusillade762: I'd bet good money this gets turned into a movie soon.


KAVORKA: Come on, there ought to be a rule where they can give him 10 years in a rent-free, comparable apartment.  Or something like that.  He basically extorted them, how does this help anybody except him?

It's not extortion, it's capitalism. Why do you hate America?


Not really capitalism, this was more like rent-seeking by the little guy. The rent laws make it really farking difficult for a landlord to kick out deadbeat tenants and next to impossible to kick out one that's paying rent on time.

Stories like this will pop up from time to time.
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/04/30/old_mars_bar_building_tenan ts _finally_get_10_apartments.php
 
2014-03-02 11:16:03 PM  

a particular individual: Make More Hinjews: ... using this one old, weird tip?

Just the tip.


ArcadianRefugee: Lemme guess: did he use this one weird trick the real estate companies don't want you to know about?

/discovered by a mom
//yes, I realize I'm late to the party
///suck it
////suck it long and hard


I'm kind of honored I could help you guys meet!  It appears you have some catching up to do, eh, wink wink, nudge nudge, he said with a knowing smile.
 
2014-03-02 11:18:23 PM  

ReverendJasen: StanTheMan: Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

How many do you own?  Are you speaking from first hand experience?
The common tactic in these areas is for landlords to do anything they can to drive residents out.  So leaving the building as craphole as possible becomes a mark of pride for them.


There's plenty of economic reality that rent control has issues with. It costs money, quite a bit of it, to keep up a building. Try owning your own home some time for a reasonable length (like 10+ years). See the amount you have to spend to keep the place in good shape. It isn't cheap (it's very worth it, but not cheap). Those costs go up more or less all the time, since we tend to have steady, low, inflation in the US. So every year, things cost a little more. Also some things go up more due to new and better safety or environmental regulations. Like, say, an A/C, which now need to be R-410 (which is higher pressure so less efficient) and 13 SEER minimum, both which necessitate a larger heat exchanger, and thus more cost. So though you get better equipment, the minimum upfront cost is more.

Then add on things like property taxes and all those other expenses.  Property tax in particular goes up as the valuation of your place goes up.

Well, if you've places that are rent controlled at a certain level, they'll start to be unprofitable, and then just get more and more unprofitable. If a given space costs you $500/month in maintenance, taxes, and so on but you can only charge $200/month for it, well then you have a problem long term. Cutting maintenance makes sense in every way. You want the person out so you can charge more, you save money, and thus lose less while they are there, and it keep the value lower to keep taxes lower.

Seriously: Have a look at property costs some time. If you want a good breakdown of all kinds of things, find a friend who's on the board of a condo association and have a look at what they have to pay for everything. Keeping property up is expensive, particularly if you want it done well. That money has to come from somewhere. Then have a look at the books 10 years ago, see the cost growth.
 
2014-03-02 11:21:23 PM  

ignacio: He's not a hero, he's a dick. He needlessly antagonized these guys until they gave in to his outrageous demands.


I don't think they were outrageous. Why hate on the guy just because you don't like how he spends his free time?
 
2014-03-02 11:21:35 PM  
Now that was a story you'd normally read only in fiction books. I might have to buy a copy of that book.

They should have sprung for the twice weekly free meals. I don't think he could have wolfed down enough of even the most expensive food to top even two million. Though, wines in those places can go for hundreds a glass, so he just might have been able to drink close to that amount.

Read 'The Hermits of New York'. It's about the Collier Brothers and is fascinating. Around mid life they bought a building and cut themselves off from nearly everyone, then went slowly crazy.
 
2014-03-02 11:27:14 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.

I know, have you the hell hole Manhattan has become? SOHO? Greenwich Village? Park Slopes? He'll holes, pure hell holes.

/you forgot to mention the tax abatement the developer received.


Sure if you wanna judge a place by amenities, how nice it looks, and the general level of civilization, but do they have freedumb?  Huh?  Do they?  Because this is what freedum looks like, and it's the most beautiful place in the world.

photos1.blogger.com
 
2014-03-02 11:30:12 PM  

Fissile: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.

I know, have you the hell hole Manhattan has become? SOHO? Greenwich Village? Park Slopes? He'll holes, pure hell holes.

/you forgot to mention the tax abatement the developer received.

Sure if you wanna judge a place by amenities, how nice it looks, and the general level of civilization, but do they have freedumb?  Huh?  Do they?  Because this is what freedum looks like, and it's the most beautiful place in the world.

[photos1.blogger.com image 505x380]


Look how nice my gilded cage is!
 
2014-03-02 11:31:51 PM  
Eh, fark this dude, they should have just paid some dudes to burn down the building with him in it.

/sorta not really serious.
 
2014-03-02 11:33:02 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Equilibrist: And to think, they could have had it  for the additional cost of 2 meals a week, maybe $200 extra.

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the cost, but that the high-end restaurant didn't want to be continually inhabited by a foul-smelling curmudgeon.


THIS!

/No one wants pee-stained hobos taking up their booths
 
2014-03-02 11:35:43 PM  

Emposter: Except, as I pointed out, he didn't need or even really want the money. So he wasted between one and two years of the last 9 years of his life living it a construction zone because he was too smart to accept the earlier offer, and held out for an even larger amount that he apparently didn't want or need. That sounds too smart for his own good to me.


How?  He walked away with $17 million.  Who cares if he needed it or not?  I'm still not seeing how he outsmarted himself.  He may be a dick for screwing with the developers out of spite, but he still walked away with a better deal.  Outsmarting himself would have been holding out for a better deal only to have the eviction case against him succeed.
 
2014-03-02 11:38:11 PM  
So a scumbag extorted millions of dollars from even bigger scumbags.
Good. I suppose.
 
2014-03-02 11:40:14 PM  
christ doesn't even have a lawn.
 
2014-03-02 11:47:21 PM  

Mantour: Old man with a lot of money?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x637]

He can get a gold-digging wife for a few years, catch up on what he missed, for all its worth.


They should replace that bulb.
 
2014-03-02 11:50:43 PM  

StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.


The non-rent controlled apartments may be nicer, but for someone who can't afford the rent in one of them, but can in the rent-controlled place, it doesn't really matter.

Rent control exists to keep people from being priced out of their own homes.  Yes, they don't actually own the property, but for places like Manhattan where only the 1% could actually afford to own the property, renters need certain protections.  It's in the city's best interests to foster a sense of investment in the community, and long term residents with a stake in the neighborhood are one of the best ways to do that.  If you know that you can easily be priced out of the place you're living the next year, it doesn't give you much incentive to be involved in the community or to try to make it a better place.
 
2014-03-02 11:51:14 PM  

mutterfark: [ilarge.listal.com image 685x385]


I love that movie! :D
 
2014-03-02 11:54:26 PM  
What, no One Simple Trick?
 
2014-03-02 11:55:46 PM  

Mentat: Emposter: Except, as I pointed out, he didn't need or even really want the money. So he wasted between one and two years of the last 9 years of his life living it a construction zone because he was too smart to accept the earlier offer, and held out for an even larger amount that he apparently didn't want or need. That sounds too smart for his own good to me.

How?  He walked away with $17 million.  Who cares if he needed it or not?  I'm still not seeing how he outsmarted himself.  He may be a dick for screwing with the developers out of spite, but he still walked away with a better deal.  Outsmarting himself would have been holding out for a better deal only to have the eviction case against him succeed.



And if I read that correctly, it was the developer saying he had no intentions of leaving his wealth to charity or anyone else. It turned out not to be true:

He died aged 80 living inside his new luxurious $1 a month apartment and left his fortune to his brother.
 
2014-03-03 12:00:11 AM  

Mentat: Emposter: Except, as I pointed out, he didn't need or even really want the money. So he wasted between one and two years of the last 9 years of his life living it a construction zone because he was too smart to accept the earlier offer, and held out for an even larger amount that he apparently didn't want or need. That sounds too smart for his own good to me.

How?  He walked away with $17 million.  Who cares if he needed it or not?  I'm still not seeing how he outsmarted himself.  He may be a dick for screwing with the developers out of spite, but he still walked away with a better deal.  Outsmarting himself would have been holding out for a better deal only to have the eviction case against him succeed.


He did it because it was more interesting than the crossword.

He was a troll. Epic troll.
 
2014-03-03 12:02:22 AM  

That Guy Jeff: I couldn't have come up with a world where owners of buildings can't charge whatever they want for use of their buildings. These little glimpses of places like New York are like windows into alternate realities for me. It seems so incredibly... wrong and counterintuitive to say "So, you OWN this, but you can't use it however you want."


Yeah, it must really suck to live in a place where there are regulations to protect the average Joe from being completely shiat on by the plutocrats.
 
2014-03-03 12:06:09 AM  

organizmx: OgreMagi: organizmx: I live in a historic town filled with NYC commuters, so I just came in here to say fark developers to hell.

A developer built what you currently live in.

Yeah, in 1890, as rentals actually, but he did it without knocking down existing buildings, and they were built with a ton of care and attention to architectural detail. They're still striking and in fashion 120 years later.

Developers today buy homes like mine, bulldoze them, and put up cheap condos which blight otherwise beautiful historic neighborhoods.


A lot of those old buildings are ugly, have no real historic value (being old isn't enough) and cost too much to keep up.  For cities like New York, the only way to build something new is to knock down something old since their is no place empty to build.  Out where I live, you can pay way too much for a shiatty apartment in San Francisco, $2000+ for a crappy studio is common, or you can have a long commute.  I chose the long commute and live in a very nice modern 2b2b apartment.  To afford a house, your commute time gets crazy - but that's where the undeveloped land is located.
 
2014-03-03 12:06:19 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.

The non-rent controlled apartments may be nicer, but for someone who can't afford the rent in one of them, but can in the rent-controlled place, it doesn't really matter.

Rent control exists to keep people from being priced out of their own homes.  Yes, they don't actually own the property, but for places like Manhattan where only the 1% could actually afford to own the property, renters need certain protections.  It's in the city's best interests to foster a sense of investment in the community, and long term residents with a stake in the neighborhood are one of the best ways to do that.  If you know that you can easily be priced out of the place you're living the next year, it doesn't give you much incentive to be involved in the community or to try to make it a better place.

Because nothing builds community like run down housing.

Want to make more cheap housing? Ease building and zoning laws.  Sure, some rich dudes are getting new luxury apartments, but they're moving out of older stock, leaving them vacant for upper middle class to move into who in turn leave cheaper housing and so on until the market clears and everyone has a place to live.  When you restrict the crap out of the market for housing it drives up prices and makes moving to improve ones life way more difficult than it should be.
 
2014-03-03 12:09:27 AM  

ReverendJasen: Starshines: I don't see why there should be any hate for this guy at all.  He played the game like a master and got a nice little payday from some douche bag Manhattan real estate developers who will just pass the cost along to their ultra rich clients who won't even notice already sold the building for $88 million.

ftfy.  I don't feel bad for them one iota.  I have an entire field of no-farks planted.


That was beautiful. As someone who cherishes the level of apathy he operates under, who also happens to have an affinity for horticulture, I will be getting so much mileage out of that phrase.
 
2014-03-03 12:10:21 AM  

super_grass: toadist: I don't think we are to look at him as a hero.   He's a millionaire, and I believe here on fark that millionaires are bad and to be vilified.

Tear this person down and sick the tax man on him.

His estate will likely go to the state since he's a freaking hermit with no family or friends.


Not if he spends it all on hookers and blow first.
 
2014-03-03 12:11:14 AM  

ricbach229: TuteTibiImperes: StanTheMan: Rent-stabilized tenants in the outer boroughs are increasingly facing malign neglect from greedy landlords

Uh, no, malign neglect comes from landlords who can't earn a return on investment because of rent control, so they don't improve their buildings.

Santa Monica, CA has rent control. All the buildings are run down ugly crapholes. Nearby Westwood has no rent control, and all the apartment buildings are new and beautiful, some with giant gyms and other awesome amenities. You get what you freaking pay for.

Want to see crappy apartments? Go to a rent controlled city.

The non-rent controlled apartments may be nicer, but for someone who can't afford the rent in one of them, but can in the rent-controlled place, it doesn't really matter.

Rent control exists to keep people from being priced out of their own homes.  Yes, they don't actually own the property, but for places like Manhattan where only the 1% could actually afford to own the property, renters need certain protections.  It's in the city's best interests to foster a sense of investment in the community, and long term residents with a stake in the neighborhood are one of the best ways to do that.  If you know that you can easily be priced out of the place you're living the next year, it doesn't give you much incentive to be involved in the community or to try to make it a better place.
Because nothing builds community like run down housing.

Want to make more cheap housing? Ease building and zoning laws.  Sure, some rich dudes are getting new luxury apartments, but they're moving out of older stock, leaving them vacant for upper middle class to move into who in turn leave cheaper housing and so on until the market clears and everyone has a place to live.  When you restrict the crap out of the market for housing it drives up prices and makes moving to improve ones life way more difficult than it should be.


That works in places you can build, but NYC, outside of the edges of the outer boroughs, isn't one of those places.  In Manhattan in particular the only place left to build is up.  So, you either end up driving residents further out geographically in search of affordable housing, or you have to allow the destruction of historic older buildings to make room for higher density housing, neither of those are good things.
 
2014-03-03 12:13:35 AM  

Goimir: Mentat: Emposter: Except, as I pointed out, he didn't need or even really want the money. So he wasted between one and two years of the last 9 years of his life living it a construction zone because he was too smart to accept the earlier offer, and held out for an even larger amount that he apparently didn't want or need. That sounds too smart for his own good to me.

How?  He walked away with $17 million.  Who cares if he needed it or not?  I'm still not seeing how he outsmarted himself.  He may be a dick for screwing with the developers out of spite, but he still walked away with a better deal.  Outsmarting himself would have been holding out for a better deal only to have the eviction case against him succeed.

He did it because it was more interesting than the crossword.

He was a troll. Epic troll.


Maybe.  Certainly possible.  But the article indicates that he might have done it just because he figured out partway through how much his property was really worth.

Sukenik knew the precise acreage of his block and how much the Zeckendorfs had paid. He'd calculated the taxes, insurance and carrying costs of the empty properties and recited them all to Grabow. And he wouldn't begin negotiations until his three fellow tenants were gone. "He knew the last man standing was very valuable."

He was already independently wealthy, according to the article.  His dad left him loads of money, and he never worked a day in his life after that.  Yet, according to the article he spent his days cooped up in an apartment doing crosswords.  He didn't use the fortune he had already...what would he use more money for?

If he did it for entertainment, then, to him, it might have been worth it.  But the article indicated that he did it simply because he didn't want to be ripped off.  If he ended up wasting 1-2 of the last few years of his life bargaining for money he didn't want or need, simply because his intellect wouldn't let him sell for less than it was worth, that's the definition of too smart for his own good.
 
2014-03-03 12:13:55 AM  

Goimir: He did it because it was more interesting than the crossword.

He was a troll. Epic troll.


He got forced out of his living space by a couple of tools with dollar signs in their eyes. I don't think he's the troll.
 
2014-03-03 12:15:15 AM  

JungleBoogie: Goimir: He did it because it was more interesting than the crossword.

He was a troll. Epic troll.

He got forced out of his living space by a couple of tools with dollar signs in their eyes. I don't think he's the troll.


One does not preclude the other.  The described circumstances certainly provide for the possibility that he was an epic troll, though there isn't confirmation.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report