Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Tree fosters dispute over what’s a good neighbor

There is trouble with the trees.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Take, for instance, the Chinese pine across the street from retired baseball star John Olerud’s Clyde Hill home.

John and Kelly Olerud see an eyesore that blocks the view of the Seattle skyline from their new, custom-built home.

The owners of the pine, Bruce and Linda Baker, see the natural beauty of a rare tree that stands sentinel over the family’s backyard patio.

Olerud, a former Seattle Mariner, one-time American League batting champ and three-time Gold Glove winner, has been asking the Bakers for more than two years if he can pay to have the tree cut down.

For two-plus years, the Bakers have refused.

Now the Oleruds want the Clyde Hill Board of Adjustment to order their neighbors to cut down the tree, saying it unreasonably obstructs the view from their $4 million property facing Lake Washington, Seattle and the Olympic Mountains…

In Clyde Hill, a city of almost 3,000 between Bellevue and Medina, property values are closely associated with views.

The city says it was the first in the area and one of the first in the nation to adopt a process for condemning trees that block too much of neighbors’ sunlight or scenic views.

To date, no tree has been cut under that 20-year-old law…

Olerud said he would be willing to buy a replacement tree that wouldn’t block his view.

In an effort to placate Olerud, Baker cut down a small coast redwood, agreed to remove the spruce and had the pine pruned in a way intended to allow some of the viewscape to show through. But he wasn’t willing to cut down a tree that his arborist called very rare and valued at $18,000…

The Board of Adjustment is expected to make a decision in November if the neighbors don’t reach an agreement.

Hat tip to Roberto.

The District Attorney Posted: September 11, 2012 at 04:46 PM | 67 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blue jays, john olerud, mariners, mets, red sox, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. WahooSam Posted: September 11, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4233152)
So, the Olerud's built a home, knowing full well where their neighbour's tree was, and then demand he cuts it down? What ########. That's like buying a house near the airport then complaining about the noise
   2. Lassus Posted: September 11, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4233156)
I wonder if he wears his helmet in his living room.
   3. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: September 11, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4233158)
Yeah, I wouldn't have figured Olerud for an #######, but there it is.
   4. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4233169)
Christ, what an #######.
   5. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4233171)
Not that big a tree & it looks healthy from the picture. Don't see how you can insist your neighbor cut down his tree to improve your view, especially when the tree was there first. The local law allowing trees to be condemned to improve someone's view seems awfully mischievous.
   6. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4233172)
So, the Olerud's built a home, knowing full well where their neighbour's tree was, and then demand he cuts it down? What ########. That's like buying a house near the airport then complaining about the noise

Yeah, I could see his complaint if he bought the house before the tree started to grow, but the tree was there long before Olerud.
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4233173)
Yeah, I wouldn't have figured Olerud for an #######, but there it is.

Yeah, always seemed like a nice guy. But, ####### move.
   8. NTNgod Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4233175)
The cherry on top:
The Oleruds lived in the Bakers' house for eight months in 2008 and 2009 while the Oleruds were building their own 6,680-square-foot home and Bruce Baker was working on his doctorate at Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

   9. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4233176)
What a prick. Cheese and rice.
   10. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4233184)
This seems like a dispute that the right amount of money could easily solve, and I'm sure the Oleruds can afford to pay (especially if the improved view will increase Olerud's property value).

Also, bringing religion into it (especially when the other guy is a pastor) is kind of a dick move by Olerud.

If I were Baker, I'd offer to trade houses...
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4233185)
If the view was so fricking important, why didn't Olerud just buy a house with an unobstructed view?

He made almost $70M. I have to think he could afford a house on the other side of the street.
   12. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4233195)
I was wondering what tree fosters were.
   13. Dale H. Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4233196)
I wonder why the Oleruds can't be happy in their shade?
   14. Walt Davis Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4233205)
Bruce Baker was working on his doctorate

Wait, a grad student/pastor can afford a house in that neighborhood? Where did I go wrong?
   15. vortex of dissipation Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4233206)
I wonder why the Oleruds can't be happy in their shade?


Because although Olerud played for Toronto, he's not actually a Canadian.
   16. vortex of dissipation Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4233213)
Wait, a grad student/pastor can afford a house in that neighborhood? Where did I go wrong?


According to the article, he's an ex-Microsoft manager, and founded a company he later sold to Hewlett-Packard. I suspect he's rather well off.
   17. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 11, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4233214)
EDIT: Coke to vortex
   18. SteveM. Posted: September 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4233223)
"You guys saw the trees," Olerud said at the board hearing. "They're not attractive trees. I would say they're the kind of tree that only an arborist would love. ...


Its always those damn arborists. The tree looks good to me but what do I know? I am from New Mexico and still am in somewhat awe of the wilderness (and green) I live in now up in the Northeast.
   19. Ryan Lind Posted: September 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4233226)
If I were the neighbour and I had money, I would invest whatever I could to acquire and plant 5 more of the ####### and hope they grow fast.
   20. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4233254)
i read about these disputes in san fran a lot as well. folks got all caught up in 'the view'
   21. MM1f Posted: September 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4233296)
Nancy Dammkoehler, a neighbor who spoke at the hearing, said the Oleruds are reasonable people and scolded Baker: "All they want is to see the top of the Space Needle. If you can't figure this out, boy, I tell you, you'd better find a different line of work, buddy, because you're not very Christian."


Yeah Reverend! Didn't you read the part of the Bible about "thou shalt not obstruct views of tourist attractions"!?
   22. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: September 11, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4233326)
The Oleruds also want the Bakers to replace their daughter with a better-looking one.
   23. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4233332)
i read about these disputes in san fran a lot as well. folks got all caught up in 'the view'

Like looking at trees is bad.
LOOKING AT TREES IS NOT BAD.
   24. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:07 AM (#4233333)
I think they should come to a middle ground. Olerud apologizes and pays for any costs the Bakers have incurred and the Baker agrees to not knock out Olerud's teeth.
   25. JoeHova Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4233338)
If I was Bruce Baker, I'd hang a gigantic sign on my tree that said "EAT #### OLERUD." Let him see just how much worse an "obstruction" can get.
   26. GregD Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4233343)
Yeah Reverend! Didn't you read the part of the Bible about "thou shalt not obstruct views of tourist attractions"!?
This is the best part of the article; a bystander weighing in so stupidly.

My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.
   27. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4233356)

My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.


Yeah, this is a terrible ordinance. If the tree had already been there, that's one thing, but building it there with full knowledge that the tree is there and complaining about it later? Pure dickishness.

   28. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4233360)
I don't use Lexis or Westlaw any more but I suspect there's some decent case law on the matter throughout the country (published or unpublished). This would definitely be a great Property Law casebook case.

My recollection of cases involving homes and trees were always related to branches encroaching on adjacent property and damages either caused, or likely to be caused as a result. The tree owners are not undefeated in those cases.

I recall a very old weeping willow tree (a very tall/wide tree, great for climbing as a kid, impossible to hit a golf ball through it) being removed from our neighborhood, after the adjacent owner threatened to sue, as the trees roots were causing all kinds of issues to the guy's water pipes.
   29. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:18 AM (#4233369)
Agree with previous posts, the tree is huge, would've been huge before they built, no way you can complain about it.

If I was Bruce Baker, I'd hang a gigantic sign on my tree that said "EAT #### OLERUD."

Even better, drape a tarp over the top in the shape of a batting helmet.
   30. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:25 AM (#4233373)
Bruce needs to sell his home......to Rickey Henderson.
   31. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:34 AM (#4233376)
My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness.

To be fair, according to TFA, no trees have ever been cut down under the ordinance, and this is only the third case brought to the board. That's not to say that the existence of the ordinance itself hasn't led to any homeowners cutting down trees rather than go through what the Bakers are dealing with now, but it's not like the town is going around chopping down trees willy-nilly (although this did happen to my parents once in suburban New York. There was a tree on the border with a neighbors' property, one day they got home from work and all that was left was a stump. Neither my parents nor the neighbors knew whose property the tree was on and both assumed that the other had cut it down without asking. They were both pissed off until they started talking about it and realized neither of them had cut it down. Apparently the town had done so because the tree was too close to the road or something like that.)
   32. Mom makes botox doctors furious Posted: September 12, 2012 at 06:05 AM (#4233407)
"Olerud ..said ..he couldn't understand why Baker wouldn't help his neighbors open up the same "amazing view" Baker enjoys.

After all, Olerud said, the Bakers maintain their own view by trimming smaller trees on the lake side of their property."

It's THEIR PROPERTY John, and THEY bought a lakeside house. Let it go.

Amen.
   33. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 08:14 AM (#4233440)
i read about these disputes in san fran a lot as well. folks got all caught up in 'the view'


That stupid Elizabeth Hasselbeck just makes me so darn mad. It angries up the blood and makes me cranky.
   34. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 12, 2012 at 08:29 AM (#4233453)
I was wondering what tree fosters were.

I believe they are the Australian variant of the Ticket Oak.
   35. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: September 12, 2012 at 08:37 AM (#4233456)
The #### rich people worry about. It boggles the mind.
   36. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 12, 2012 at 08:38 AM (#4233458)
i like the view cases where the tree has grown in the interim from not blocking the view when the owner originally purchased the house to now it's blocking the view and the homeowner wants the tree owner to crop the tree.
   37. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: September 12, 2012 at 09:05 AM (#4233475)
If the tree stays, the arborists have won.
   38. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: September 12, 2012 at 09:07 AM (#4233477)
If the tree stays, the arborists have won.

Ha!
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 09:13 AM (#4233482)
and THEY bought a lakeside house

This is what boggles the mind. If the Oleruds cared so much about the view, why didn't they buy a house that already had one?
   40. Rants Mulliniks Posted: September 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4233555)
What a d-bag.
   41. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4233656)
This is what boggles the mind. If the Oleruds cared so much about the view, why didn't they buy a house that already had one?


Doing it this way was cheaper.
   42. Cabbage Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4233672)
In fairness, it's entirely possible that either John or Kelly (but clearly not both) is not a #########, and simply married to a self-entitled, controlling #########.
   43. Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad! Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4233685)
Olerud should be happy there are no ents in the neighborhood. His willingness to cut down trees would be dramatically reduced
   44. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4233690)
That whole "good fences make good neighbors" thing only applies to rural life in areas with flat geography.
   45. PreservedFish Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4233697)
Homer: So I thought to myself, "What would God do in this situation?"
Bart: [chuckles] Locusts! [holds box] They'll drive him _nuts_.
Homer: It's all in the Bible, son: it's the prankster's bible.
   46. Shredder Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4233768)
I can't find the story now, but a number of years ago there was a story in the L.A. Times about a guy in La Canada/Flintridge ("tree-owner") who had a large tree on his property (Sycamore maybe?) that was pretty close to dead, and he was worried about it coming down in a wind storm, and wanted to cut it down. His neighbor ("neighbor") disapproved, because the neighbor liked the shade the tree provided his back yard. So the neighbor goes to the city and complains, and gets the city to step in and stop tree-owner from cutting the tree down pursuant to some ordinance. Cut to about 9-10 months later, there's a big wind storm, and sure enough, tree-owner's dead tree comes crashing down....right on top of neighbor's garage. Poetic justice. To his credit, neighbor took responsibility and didn't sue.
   47. Traderdave Posted: September 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4233782)
Would neigbor's homeowner's insurance pay for garage repair in that instance, or would "contributory neglect" or some other legal thingamabob trump that & allow them to deny claim?
   48. Shredder Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4233800)
Would neigbor's homeowner's insurance pay for garage repair in that instance, or would "contributory neglect" or some other legal thingamabob trump that & allow them to deny claim?
I imagine the policy would cover it. I think the insurance company, however, would probably be precluded from getting anything from tree-owner (or his insurance company).
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4233812)
My neighbor's pretty damn big tree crashed through his fence and into our backyard this July. His insurance company said it would pay for the damage to his fence and the cost to remove it from his yard, but anything in my yard (which was just removal) wasn't covered. So he just bought a chainsaw instead.
   50. Rants Mulliniks Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4233829)
This is what Olerud's neighbour should do - Give him the finger
   51. Tom Nawrocki Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4233832)
Olerud is probably just jealous because the tree is faster than he is.
   52. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 12, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4233876)
A dad of a kid I went to school with, a real gonef of a finance guy, once figured out that buying and building on protected wetland and eating the fine, once they realize what you've done, was a better deal than buying land that wasn't a wetland, b/c the discount b/w buildable land and wetlands was greater than the cost of the fine. So he bought some choice coastal marsh out on the south fork of LI, built a mcmansion, litigated with the town and the state for several years, and in the end, got a sweet vacation home at a signifcant discount once everything was settled out.

But it turns out that marshes harbor mosquitoes and greenheads, so the house is virtually unusuble in the summer. Sometimes, God restores faith.
   53. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4233890)
How has a thread with that headline gone this long without a Robert Frost reference?
I AM DISAPPOINT
   54. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4233906)
In my parents' neighborhood there was a couple who clear cut their forested front and back yards and didn't plant anything to replace the trees. The land is on a grade and so ensuing erosion caused problems for everyone around them. My parents ended up having to join in a lawsuit to force them to plant some grass.
   55. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4233910)
A dad of a kid I went to school with, a real gonef of a finance guy, once figured out that buying and building on protected wetland and eating the fine, once they realize what you've done, was a better deal than buying land that wasn't a wetland, b/c the discount b/w buildable land and wetlands was greater than the cost of the fine. So he bought some choice coastal marsh out on the south fork of LI, built a mcmansion, litigated with the town and the state for several years, and in the end, got a sweet vacation home at a signifcant discount once everything was settled out.

I think a lot of jurisdictions have responded to this kind of thing by moving away from fines, and just making you tear the whole thing down.
   56. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4233920)
I think a lot of jurisdictions have responded to this kind of thing by moving away from fines, and just making you tear the whole thing down.


I understand the town in question (rhymes with Grog) has done just that.
   57. zenbitz Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4233924)
I just wanted to chime in here and say thanks for the Rush reference! First thing I thought of when I read the excerpt.

I have to say, I have trouble with this song. I mean, on the surface Libertarian anthem. But the Oaks "wonder why the Maples can't be happy in their shade". Maples die in the shade. So I prefer to think of this song as a classic ########### that occurs when people cannot compromise. Probably that's cognitive dissonance.
   58. BDC Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4233940)
How has a thread with that headline gone this long without a Robert Frost reference?

Tree at my window, window tree,
You block my view of Puget Sound;
Why do they keep your bulk around?
I CANNOT SEE!

Vague dream-head lifted out of earth,
And thing next most akin to awe,
I'd love to stroke your mighty girth
With my chain saw.

   59. PreservedFish Posted: September 12, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4233956)
I know a swinging dick type that is having a battle with his neighbors, with whom he shares a dirt road. They have a vineyard and want to build a tasting room and enlarge and improve the road, which will result in the hoi polloi driving up and down all the time. This guy claimed to have spotted an endangered newt in the vicinity, which bought him an instant few years delay for ecological surveys and such.
   60. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: September 12, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4233985)

I think a lot of jurisdictions have responded to this kind of thing by moving away from fines, and just making you tear the whole thing down.


Mm-hmm, and then you have to restore the wetlands to their previous state.
   61. Rants Mulliniks Posted: September 12, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4234040)
In my neck of the woods, and I assume its the same everywhere else, if you have enough money you can't get around every environmental protection law you please.
   62. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: September 12, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4234077)
I have to say, I have trouble with this song. I mean, on the surface Libertarian anthem. But the Oaks "wonder why the Maples can't be happy in their shade". Maples die in the shade. So I prefer to think of this song as a classic ########### that occurs when people cannot compromise. Probably that's cognitive dissonance.


I prefer to think of this song as a discussion of the classic North American climax forest: pine --> oak/hickory --> beech/maple. The maples don't need a union, as Rush claims. They're slow growing and do well in a shady environment, and will eventually outgrow and outlive the oaks. There's no need for the maples to get angry at the oaks, because unless there's a fire the oaks are doomed. It may take a century, but what's a century to a tree?
   63. Greg Schuler Posted: September 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4234139)
I appreciate no references to LoTR, myself.
   64. Srul Itza Posted: September 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4234150)

How has a thread with that headline gone this long without a Robert Frost reference?




See:

44. Crispix Attacks Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4233690)
That whole "good fences make good neighbors" thing only applies to rural life in areas with flat geography.
   65. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: September 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4234153)
<ii>My sense is that California view laws protect the views people purchase from infringement. That actually kind of makes sense. Why should your neighbors' decision to plant tall trees lower your property values? But I've never heard of having a right to proactively force your neighbors to improve your view from the one you bought. Madness. </i>

Isn't this going on in Washington?
   66. Srul Itza Posted: September 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4234155)
63. Greg Schuler Posted: September 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4234139)
I appreciate no references to LoTR, myself.


See:

43. let me teach you how to meatwad Posted: September 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4233685)
Olerud should be happy there are no ents in the neighborhood. His willingness to cut down trees would be dramatically reduced
   67. smileyy Posted: September 12, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4234166)
But it turns out that marshes harbor mosquitoes and greenheads, so the house is virtually unusuble in the summer. Sometimes, God restores faith.


Build lots and lots of crevices for barn swallow nests. One summer, my childhood home had 5 nests with a total of 22 babies in them. So that's 10 adults and 22 babies being fed on insects. I don't think there was a flying insect left within a several block radius.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3091 - 12:00pm, Jul 25)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(5 - 11:59am, Jul 25)
Last: Gonfalon B.

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(23 - 11:57am, Jul 25)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(97 - 11:56am, Jul 25)
Last: Jeltzandini

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(394 - 11:52am, Jul 25)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(72 - 11:43am, Jul 25)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(91 - 11:37am, Jul 25)
Last: Mark Armour

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(12 - 11:34am, Jul 25)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(18 - 11:14am, Jul 25)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogRick Cerone: “Robinson Cano . . . what a fool!”
(257 - 11:12am, Jul 25)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(13 - 11:06am, Jul 25)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(5 - 10:57am, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(12 - 10:52am, Jul 25)
Last: puck

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(37 - 10:16am, Jul 25)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(918 - 9:46am, Jul 25)
Last: AROM

Page rendered in 0.3343 seconds
52 querie(s) executed