Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Liberals make housing a 'right'

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. For argument's sake, what if it wasn't that long ago ?  What if the rate of return is really high right now ?  Let's work with that assumption.  

Let's not. Because it's not possible to buy a place in Toronto for a quarter million. You couldn't even get one in Ottawa for that unless it was a dump out in the boonies, and you sure as hell couldn't rent it for three grand a month.

Last week I paid my $1600 insurance bill for my house as well as the first half of my municipal taxes - another $2600. I also, of course, have to pay the water bill, heat, hydro, and a variety of expenses which come up, like the nearly $800 I had to pay a guy last week to come and get a raccoon out of my attic and then 'racoon proof' it so no more could get in. I haven't added up everything I have to spend on this place every year - aside from the mortgage, but it's considerable. I also own a condo which I bought for my brother. He pays me below market rent, and I'm responsible for all the expenses. So if a plumber has to be called I'm the one who pays for it. That includes new windows the condo board has agreed on, which are going to cost me over $15,000 this year.

Owning a place costs money.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Exactly.

My point is that at some point the public good is not helped by a subset of the population making great gains on the bottom third.  Before rent control was scaled back we had a more equitable situation.

Rent control was 'scaled back' yesterday, basically. I don't think it's had much real impact yet.  And you don't know what your landlord's balance sheet looks like.

Anyway, you're making good money, from what I understand. Buy yourself a condo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Let's not. Because it's not possible to buy a place in Toronto for a quarter million. You couldn't even get one in Ottawa for that unless it was a dump out in the boonies, and you sure as hell couldn't rent it for three grand a month.

2. Rent control was 'scaled back' yesterday, basically. 

1. It was - not that long ago.

2. No - it was Mike Harris.  You have had so many chances to absorb that.

 

But if you don't want to make the assumption that Toronto is a gold mine for landlords, fair enough.  That discussion is over then - I don't know what my landlord actually paid and it doesn't matter to me.  My other point about balancing the collective good remains unanswered, and that's the natural next point of discussion IMO.  
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But if you don't want to make the assumption that Toronto is a gold mine for landlords, fair enough.  That discussion is over then - I don't know what my landlord actually paid and it doesn't matter to me.  My other point about balancing the collective good remains unanswered, and that's the natural next point of discussion IMO.  

The problem with many of those who want to 'balance the collective good' is they really take little heed of the law of unintended consequences. Which is how we got into a housing mess in the first place. The shortage is entirely due to people doing 'good' things for the collective good, after all. Or at least, that was the intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem with many of those who want to 'balance the collective good' is they really take little heed of the law of unintended consequences. Which is how we got into a housing mess in the first place. The shortage is entirely due to people doing 'good' things for the collective good, after all. Or at least, that was the intention.

Fair enough.  But at some point the unintended consequences don't compare to the harm already done by intended ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair enough.  But at some point the unintended consequences don't compare to the harm already done by intended ones.

The solution is to do away with some of the rules which are imposed 'for the collective good'.

The Vancouver and Toronto housing-affordability crises have developed as their regional governments developed some of the most restrictive land-use policies in the high-income world. Most significantly are “urban-containment” limitations on the use of urban fringe land for new housing (as in Ontario’s “green belt”). This has increased demand, in the largely fixed area in which construction is permitted, while severely putting a lid on the supply of land for development.

Consistent with economics, this has dramatically increased the price of land and thus the cost of housing. The result is that there is no middle-income affordable land, which is needed to build middle-income affordable housing. At the same time, land prices where development is permitted are largely driven by prices on the urban fringe, which is consistent with economic theory.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/why-ottawas-attempts-to-help-young-canadians-afford-housing-simply-wont-work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everybody lives in Toronto or Vancouver. They may be enclaves of the wealthy, and young urbanites who share accommodation, not families.

Large numbers of baby boomers will sell their suburban homes and move to urban condos in smaller more affordable cities or recreational areas, making family homes available without building on the greenbelt.

https://www.inhalton.com/heres-how-baby-boomers-will-impact-canadas-housing-market

Urban boomers may stay and  divide their homes, providing needed rental units.

And somehow also ... "create two new oversight bodies meant to make sure the spending reduces homelessness."

That means creating enough public housing to clear the waiting lists and more. More efficient countries are way ahead of us in addressing housing as a necessity. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jacee said:

Not everybody lives in Toronto or Vancouver. They may be enclaves of the wealthy, and young urbanites who share accommodation, not families.

The same factors are in place in other cities. Ottawa, for example, where government regulation also is aiming to discourage construction of suburban housing and encouraging 'inbuilding' with large condo buildings going up closer into the core. 

Quote

Large numbers of baby boomers will sell their suburban homes and move to urban condos in smaller more affordable cities or recreational areas, making family homes available without building on the greenbelt.

That's one theory. The last place I lived was filled with 1950s bungalows and many if not most still had their original inhabitants. Those people had no intention of moving to some box downtown. They were there until the end. Besides, the idea condos are more affordable comes up against the condo fees, which are ranging up past $1000 a month now in the core areas of Ottawa. People buy houses so that when they're old and retired they only need to pay the municipal tax on them, with mortgages paid off. Big payments never end with condos so they're not necessarily a great match for retired people. Likewise the idea of moving to cheaper cities further away comes up against the desire to live where all their friends and family are.

Quote

That means creating enough public housing to clear the waiting lists and more. More efficient countries are way ahead of us in addressing housing as a necessity. 

We've been creating public housing for decades. Every city has tens of thousands of units, and it's never enough. The best creator of housing is the private sector. If government wasn't restricting building and adding an average of $219,000 to the cost of every new home there'd be a LOT more new homes. 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see off the grid, self-sufficient, portable homes on idle government properties (whether provincial or municipal) and on privately-owned industrial lands that don't have any mid or long-term development plans and are essentially sitting abandoned.  Since this isn't serviced land, the resident shouldn't be charged land taxes, but the respective level of government  could collect a lease amount that would be comparable in cost to land taxes.  Building companies that provide cheaper housing stock such as mini homes, converted boxcars, and modular homes, could sell the portable homes to the home-buyer once the unserviced lot is chosen.  Most of these homes are well under $100,000.00.  If the government ensures that mortgages are available to low income buyers at current mortgage rates, the mortgage costs, even with only 5% down, would probably amount to less than $1000.00 a month plus a couple of hundred dollars a month for the lease. 

The same format could be used along underused parks and sections of the Greenbelt, as this wouldn't be considered permanent housing and it would have a small carbon footprint.  All buyers would understand that contractually they may be required to relocate to another location, with substantial notice of course.  Full disclosure: I provided the first recommendations to government on the creation of the Greenbelt boundary.  It's an incredible piece of zoning legislation that will serve Ontarians for centuries to come, but it has had some unintended consequences for the cost of housing, and in some cases, inappropriate intensification.  Some temporary housing that isn't built by developers and influence peddlers from the building industry would support low income housing.  I think the aforementioned solutions could provide about 50,000-100,000 affordable housing units in the GTA that require no servicing or maintenance from taxpayers.  Government basically ensures that land and financing solutions are available and leaves the rest to the market. 

Keep in mind that such housing meets climate action goals, as it would be carbon-neutral and self-sustaining, powered largely by solar/wind and rechargeable batteries.  It would have its own water storage systems (incorporating rain barrels?) and disposable septic systems.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I'd like to see off the grid, self-sufficient, portable homes on idle government properties (whether provincial or municipal) and on privately-owned industrial lands that don't have any mid or long-term development plans and are essentially sitting abandoned.  Since this isn't serviced land, the resident shouldn't be charged land taxes, but the respective level of government  could collect a lease amount that would be comparable in cost to land taxes.  Building companies that provide cheaper housing stock such as mini homes, converted boxcars, and modular homes, could sell the portable homes to the home-buyer once the unserviced lot is chosen.  Most of these homes are well under $100,000.00.  If the government ensures that mortgages are available to low income buyers at current mortgage rates, the mortgage costs, even with only 5% down, would probably amount to less than $1000.00 a month plus a couple of hundred dollars a month for the lease. 

The same format could be used along underused parks and sections of the Greenbelt, as this wouldn't be considered permanent housing and it would have a small carbon footprint.  All buyers would understand that contractually they may be required to relocate to another location, with substantial notice of course.  Full disclosure: I provided the first recommendations to government on the creation of the Greenbelt boundary.  It's an incredible piece of zoning legislation that will serve Ontarians for centuries to come, but it has had some unintended consequences for the cost of housing, and in some cases, inappropriate intensification.  Some temporary housing that isn't built by developers and influence peddlers from the building industry would support low income housing.  I think the aforementioned solutions could provide about 50,000-100,000 affordable housing units in the GTA that require no servicing or maintenance from taxpayers.  Government basically ensures that land and financing solutions are available and leaves the rest to the market. 

Keep in mind that such housing meets climate action goals, as it would be carbon-neutral and self-sustaining, powered largely by solar/wind and rechargeable batteries.  It would have its own water storage systems (incorporating rain barrels?) and disposable septic systems.  

Can you get a mortgage (or insurance) on a portable  house with no land? I doubt it.

Is off the grid still illegal? Do they have to be connected to services? 

Most industrial land is contaminated, and can't be used for residence.

Moving people around at a whim might be problemmatic. 

Sounds like a great idea ... but I doubt it can be implemented.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Argus said:

The same factors are in place in other cities. Ottawa, for example, where government regulation also is aiming to discourage construction of suburban housing and encouraging 'inbuilding' with large condo buildings going up closer into the core

Yes, it's necessary everywhere. We'll get used to it.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

That's one theory. The last place I lived was filled with 1950s bungalows and many if not most still had their original inhabitants.

...

The link I provided surveys and summarizes the plans of retiring baby boomers. No point in guessing. 

4 hours ago, Argus said:

We've been creating public housing for decades. Every city has tens of thousands of units, and it's never enough. The best creator of housing is the private sector. If government wasn't restricting building and adding an average of $219,000 to the cost of every new home there'd be a LOT more new homes

Sure, the private sector can build, cities buy, public housing provided. 

$219k for what? 

Roads, sewers, water, lighting, sidewalks, buses, etc? Is that what you're complaining about? 

Do you think builders should have to also build that infrastructure? Would it cost buyers less if they did? I doubt it. 

"At present, development charges only cover about 80% of the costs of growth-related capital. They 
are used throughout Ontario and especially in high growth areas. That means property taxes are 
currently subsiding the cost of growth and municipalities are currently falling short of achieving the 
principle, “growth should pay for growth.” As a recent paper from the Institute on Municipal Finance 
and Governance at the University of Toronto noted, “[the] burden on existing ratepayers is not only 
inequitable,
but also leads to inefficiently low municipal service levels and other related problems 
for municipalities and the development industry.”

Apparently we should be charging about $274k per house to actually recover the costs of servicing new developments.

Or ... building denser housing in areas that already have services. I am definitely ok with that. Downtowners' taxes have always subsidized services for suburban growth on the greenfields.  We don't want that sprawl anymore, and we don't want to subsidize it, so it should be made very expensive. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 2:50 PM, Argus said:

The solution is to do away with some of the rules which are imposed 'for the collective good'. 

Yeah, no that's not the answer.  As I referred to above, Harris took off rental controls for vacated unit and it was supposed to help renters.  It didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacee said:

Can you get a mortgage (or insurance) on a portable  house with no land? I doubt it.

Is off the grid still illegal? Do they have to be connected to services? 

Most industrial land is contaminated, and can't be used for residence.

Moving people around at a whim might be problemmatic. 

Sounds like a great idea ... but I doubt it can be implemented.

It can all be done through legislation.  Yes insurance can be on the structure alone.  When a building is portable and doesn’t require digging or foundations, the impacts on residents of even slightly contaminated land are minimal because the land is mostly undisturbed.  Like land taxes, the leases would pay for governments to do basic environmental assessments to determine whether such lands are safe for habitation.  Most would be.  It’s about political will and taking bold steps to solve the affordable housing crisis.  It could turn out to be a source of innovation for all sustainable housing going forward.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It can all be done through legislation.  

Good luck. Let me know how you make out with that. 

Developers will scream. Politicians will buckle.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jacee said:

Good luck. 

The Greenbelt was established through zoning legislation and in part through my letters and the Greenbelt Boundary proposal I sent to politicians and technocrats.  Nothing mysterious there.  I used similar activism to help get rid of coal plants.  Opinion pieces for newspapers and letters to stakeholders, if persistent and persuasively written, can work.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Greenbelt was established through zoning legislation and in part through my letters and the Greenbelt Boundary proposal I sent to politicians and technocrats.  Nothing mysterious there.  I used similar activism to help get rid of coal plants.  Opinion pieces for newspapers and letters to stakeholders, if persistent and persuasively written, can work.  

Does anyone in their right mind want to see the population of southern Ontario double?

How about stopping third world immigration, so we don't have to have wipe out the oak ridges moraine, just to give them houses. Even conservatives prefer forest over concrete. If the liberals want to stop urban sprawl, all the power too them. I don't feel like spending an extra hour in traffic just to get to my cottage.

Here's another problem that could be solved through depopulation. I will say it again and again.

We can return to nature, or we can destroy the remaining forest and spend hours in traffic, and stare at miserable housing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

Does anyone in their right mind want to see the population of southern Ontario double?

How about stopping third world immigration, so we don't have to have wipe out the oak ridges moraine, just to give them houses. Even conservatives prefer forest over concrete. If the liberals want to stop urban sprawl, all the power too them. I don't feel like spending an extra hour in traffic just to get to my cottage.

Here's another problem that could be solved through depopulation. I will say it again and again.

We can return to nature, or we can destroy the remaining forest and spend hours in traffic, and stare at miserable housing.

High population isn’t Canada’s problem.  90% of the country is almost empty.  The issue is population distribution.  We’re all huddled in the south.  We need people in the north to develop the resources and make remote communities self-sufficient and viable.  Canada needs at least about 60 million people to have the critical mass required to manufacture a wide range of products in every sector and supply a sufficiently large domestic market for these goods and services.  Otherwise we will always be too export dependent.  We’re already far too reliant on the US market, which makes us vulnerable to belligerent protectionism south of the border.  The question is, how do we incentivize northern settlement?  I think the easiest way is through immigration policy.  I’ve discussed policies that might facilitate this on other threads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

High population isn’t Canada’s problem.  90% of the country is almost empty.  The issue is population distribution.  We’re all huddled in the south.  We need people in the north to develop the resources and make remote communities self-sufficient and viable.  Canada needs at least about 60 million people to have the critical mass required to manufacture a wide range of products in every sector and supply a sufficiently large domestic market for these goods and services.  Otherwise we will always be too export dependent.  We’re already far too reliant on the US market, which makes us vulnerable to belligerent protectionism south of the border.  The question is, how do we incentivize northern settlement?  I think the easiest way is through immigration policy.  I’ve discussed policies that might facilitate this on other threads.  

I agree with you. There are way too many in Southern Ontario.

Id like to see some new cities built along South-Eastern British Columbia, Southern Alberta, Central Manitoba, Lake Superior, North Eastern Quebec, and Labrador.

60 million sounds about right, but I'd like cut the population of Canada's largest cities in half. I'm against hyper-urbanization.

I'm for semi-decentralized population development. I want to see more people spread out.

I want the children of the future to live in Spacious condos, or have houses with a decent back yards.

I think 60 million is doable. How about reducing Toronto to 3 million, Montreal to 2 million, and Vancouver to 1.5. We then can have 20 cities around 500 000. and hundreds of towns around 100 000.

I would like to see large forests on the edge of the cities, and the farms in the in between the cities, taking no more than 60% of a region.

So if Canada should have 60 million. Should India reduce their population to 60 million? What if India reduces their population by 65% to 500 million? When are the Indians going to wake up and start to panic. Most of them don't have a clue that their country is overpopulated. They just think endless slums are normal.

indian-slum1.jpg

Maybe they think that's what God wanted, when really this is what God wants.

ar127489275032547.jpg

There would be enough wood to supply houses like that for thousands of years if we go our population down. Let the children of the future reconnect with nature.

 

If I was a global dictator, I'd implement a 1000 year plan to bring us down to 100 million, and Canada's population would only be 3 million or something.

We would live near the coast and leave the interior of every continent undeveloped and in a nature state.

There would be less than 10 cities with 500 000 people.

Most of the world would be living in communities between 10 and 50 thousand.

We would have millions of tigers and polar bears.

Edited by Robert Greene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The question is, how do we incentivize northern settlement?  I think the easiest way is through immigration policy.  I’ve discussed policies that might facilitate this on other threads.  

I believe you are hinting at forcing people to live where they may not wish to? Constitutionally unacceptable. 

6 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

If I was a global dictator,

Some of your comments are virulently hateful, others simply delusional, none are helpful in any rational world, really approaching dangerous fanaticism. 

Are you likely to act on any of your delusions and hatred, Robert? What actions would you take? Who would help you? Where are you located? 

Both of you, Zeitgeist and Robert Greene, seem focused on totalitarian imposed 'solutions' with little respect for free will and democracy.

It's ironic that those who present themselves as 'patriots' and 'nationalists' in defense of Canada are most likely to propose authoritarian solutions that violate Canadian laws and democracy. -_-

Our housing issues are serious, but not to the point that it's necessary to destroy democracy in order to house people. :lol:

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s nothing totalitarian about offering a faster track to citizenship by having a 3-5 year residency requirement before full citizenship is granted.  The residency requirement might be to live and work north of a certain latitude.  Once citizenship is granted people can live where they want.  We don’t have to allow any non-citizens to live and work anywhere in Canada, yet we do this for temporary workers in agriculture.  That’s fine.  My policy is a way to citizenship that helps meet Canada’s settlement needs.  It offers a path to citizenship for less skilled/educated people who might not get into the country under the current system.

You seem to think that Canadians should give away money and resources without requiring anything in return.  It seemed to be your take on how to solve poor conditions on Indigenous reserves, the affordable housing crisis, and all social problems.  As the poll I posted and numerous posts from others in this site clearly demonstrate, if you ask people directly how much of their income they are willing to give to support such causes, the answer is very little.   I say that as someone who is actually willing to give away some of my earnings to help the have-nots.  

If you can’t drum up public support for a solution, that solution won’t be implemented.  As you can tell, public opinion is leaning more right than left these days, so the only policies that will fly must either have a low cost to taxpayers or be entirely market driven.   My solutions meet those criteria.  

The only reason it was possible to create the Greenbelt was because the provincial government was able to restrict development through zoning rather than buying or expropriating land, which would have been far too expensive.  Basically some areas are zoned agricultural or have restricted use.  There’s nothing unconstitutional about that.  Similarly there’s nothing unconstitutional about granting a work permit to a foreigner that has geographic restrictions. We don’t have to grant work permits to foreign workers at all.  In fact, we don’t do very much of it.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There’s nothing totalitarian about offering a faster track to citizenship by having a 3-5 year residency requirement before full citizenship is granted.  

We already have that.

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The residency requirement might be to live and work north of a certain latitude.

Offering jobs may be a legitimate strategy.

Forcibly restricting movement is not.

It's amazing to me how 'patriots' and 'nationalists' are so totally bereft of any real commitment to equality, freedom, and democracy.:lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacee said:

We already have that.

Offering jobs may be a legitimate strategy.

Forcibly restricting movement is not.

It's amazing to me how 'patriots' and 'nationalists' are so totally bereft of any real commitment to equality, freedom, and democracy.:lol:

 

What threat is there to "equality, freedom, and democracy" in thoughtful macroeconomic planning?  Work permits and citizenship are not and should not be handed out unconditionally.  I'll frame it this away:  Currently around 350,000-400,000 immigrants come to Canada each year, 70% of them settling in the Greater Toronto Area.  That means that the GTA's population will double in around 30 years, putting tremendous pressure on air and water quality, transportation infrastructure, housing affordability, and social services.  If the Oak Ridges moraine and Greenbelt are retained, our aquifers will maintain water quality.  However, home ownership will end except for the very rich.  Commute times will grow.  Automation and continued offshoring of manufacturing will push most people into lower paying service jobs.  Professionals, coders, and the highly creative and educated, the "Creative Class", will run the show but represent a small portion of society.  These events are already unfolding.  I haven't even gotten into the question of culture wars and their socio-economic implications, as Muslim and Indigenous birth rates are higher than among other demographics.  Essentially a smaller, lower paid middle class will bear more social burdens.  So as long as we don't mind the end of home ownership for millennials and future generations, waiting longer on train/subway platforms or on congested highways, and having far more people in close proximity, the future looks bright.  Oh yeah, there's also climate change and mass emergency migration, catastrophic relief costs...  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacee said:

We already have that.

Offering jobs may be a legitimate strategy.

Forcibly restricting movement is not.

It's amazing to me how 'patriots' and 'nationalists' are so totally bereft of any real commitment to equality, freedom, and democracy.:lol:

 

LIKE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jacee said:

Yes, it's necessary everywhere. We'll get used to it.

Its necessary? Why?

19 hours ago, jacee said:

The link I provided surveys and summarizes the plans of retiring baby boomers. No point in guessing. 

Your link says that only 20% plan on buying a new place and only a third of them will buy a condo. So I'm not sure where you're getting this confidence in their interest in rushing into the core.

19 hours ago, jacee said:

Sure, the private sector can build, cities buy, public housing provided. 

That is a grossly expensive and inefficient use of resources.

19 hours ago, jacee said:

$219k for what? 

Roads, sewers, water, lighting, sidewalks, buses, etc? Is that what you're complaining about? 

 And where is the justification for assigning it to new houses? When I moved into my 1950s bungalow I didn't have to pay anything extra. 

19 hours ago, jacee said:

"At present, development charges only cover about 80% of the costs of growth-related capital.

Development charges are only a small part of the cost government adds to new developments. As the CD Howe study pointed out, government regulatory burdens add up to between $50,000 and $100,000 per home as well.

19 hours ago, jacee said:

Or ... building denser housing in areas that already have services. I am definitely ok with that. Downtowners' taxes have always subsidized services for suburban growth on the greenfields.  We don't want that sprawl anymore, and we don't want to subsidize it, so it should be made very expensive. 

Yes, well, the Left is always big on telling people how they ought to be living their lives. No doubt you and your cats get along fine in a small apartment. But people with kids want a house with a yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Argus said:

Yes, well, the Left is always big on telling people how they ought to be living their lives. No doubt you and your cats get along fine in a small apartment. But people with kids want a house with a yard.

This is child abuse.

5-stackstone-road-markham-n4329630-photo

This is healthy living.

5bd5245f-0c3c-411b-a567-a5fb549846d7.c10

This is how we should be building subdivisions.

Edited by Robert Greene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...