Residents debate Grove Street Cemetery wall

It was anything but peaceful at the Grove Street Cemetery Proprietors’ annual meeting at the Graduate Club, an event made open to the public for the first time Tuesday evening.

Before the standing committee of the proprietors and a crowd of nearly 90 New Haven residents, School of Architecture Dean Robert A.M. Stern ARC ’65 unveiled architectural drawings of the proposed alterations to the cemetery wall. The heated question-and-answer that followed turned into a forum for concerned citizens to voice their anger at the proposal to replace sections of the wall along Prospect Street with iron fencing. The 11-member standing committee has ultimate authority to approve any proposed changes to the property, though G. Harold Welch Jr., the president of the standing committee, said that no decision would be made in the immediate future.

School of Architecture Dean Robert A.M. Stern ARC ’65 has developed a plan to open up the wall of the Grove Street Cemetery along Prospect Street.
Brian Chang
School of Architecture Dean Robert A.M. Stern ARC ’65 has developed a plan to open up the wall of the Grove Street Cemetery along Prospect Street.

A dozen members of the New Haven Preservation Trust, the New Haven Urban Design League and the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation were present at the event. Anstress Farwell GRD ’78, the president of the New Haven Urban Design League, publicly presented a petition of 450 signatures to the proprietors opposing the alterations.

The proposal’s sponsor, Charles Ellis ’59, who introduced Stern, first laid out the rationale behind his suggestion to substitute 145 feet of the cemetery’s sandstone wall with iron fences. He said he hoped that the changes would create an inviting and open atmosphere to attract visitors to the cemetery. Ellis, a former Yale Corporation fellow who is married to University Secretary and Vice President Linda Lorimer, said he alone was responsible for the proposal and objectors should not blame Yale University.

“I thought it would be great if I could do something useful for the community of New Haven,” he said. “It’s just me. No one from Yale mentioned any ideas to me.”

Stern, whose New York firm compiled photographs of the cemetery and created the architectural drawings, gave an hour-long PowerPoint presentation that translated Ellis’ proposal into images. While critiquing the current state of the cemetery, he reminded the audience that property has gone through many changes throughout the past two centuries.

“I think the change to the wall is a modest proposal,” he said. “It can be reversed if we wanted to.”

Twice when Stern suggested that opening up the wall would make the pedestrian walkway along Prospect Street more inviting, he was interrupted with disapproving interjections from the audience. In response, he added that only 5 percent of the wall would be removed if the standing committee votes for the proposal.

In addition to cutting away three segments of the wall, Stern’s drawings showed three landscaping alterations: adding low shrubbery along the sidewalk, replacing the current cobra street lamps with traditional Yale-style lampposts and planting elm trees along the outer edge of the sidewalk.

“In my opinion, it’s not breaking the sacred trust between 1840 and now,” he said.

He was greeted by light applause at the end of his presentation.

Although critics in the audience voiced strong opposition to the removal of the wall, several expressed approval of the new landscaping plans Sterns introduced.

During the question-and-answer section of the meeting, citizens came forward with emotional testimonies.

Lori Ann Brass, a freelance writer from Woodbridge, Conn., who buried her husband Lawrence Brass in the cemetery this spring, said the proposed changes will harm the peaceful environment of the cemetery. She recounted an anecdote of how she and her husband, who was then sick with lung cancer, drove by the cemetery three months before his death in March 2009.

“He was so delighted that I chose this space for him,” she said. “It felt safe to him. The idea that passerby can peek in feels like a sort of violation.”

Other attendees continued to implicate that the University was ultimately behind the expansion.

Connecticut State Representative Patricia Dillon, a Democrat from New Haven, who lingered in the back of the audience, did not hold back her passionate opinion.

“It’s not a Yale property. It’s a community property,” she shouted. “I don’t think it’s good for relations.”

During the middle of the question-and-answer session, Farwell took an opportunity to present the petition to Welch, the committee’s president. Stern stepped aside as she approached the microphone to speak on behalf of all the signatories and historical preservation trusts involved in the petition. Her short speech ended with warm applause from much of the audience.

Stern had trouble recovering the podium as the meeting slowly moved from question-and-answer to a free forum. Nancy Ahern of the New Haven Preservation Trust read letters from the community and the entirety of John Scrudato’s ’11 Sept. 28 guest column in the News titled “Preserve Grove Street Cemetery” in an effort to sway the proprietors.

John Herzan, the preservation services officer for the New Haven Preservation Trust, said he was pleased that all sides of the argument were heard in the meeting. While he disagreed with Stern, he thought the architect genuinely believed the alternation would be a good idea.

“His landscape and lighting ideas are wonderful,” he said. “But I have a difficult time understanding the opening up of the wall.”

The standing committee of the proprietors held a second private meeting following the event.

Comments

  • Recent Alum

    If we built the two new colleges on the New Haven Green instead, this would not even be an issue.

  • Patricia Dillon

    The presentation was thorough, but it was difficult to hear. I hoped to be heard but certainly would not want to shout. That said, I do believe the proponents should step back and think about this. If Prospect is forbidding, one might look to the streetscape at Becton as well.
    Rep. Pat Dillon

  • townie

    When will Yale realize the city outside your gates and walls isn’t yours? How about the city and it’s residents decide to open Yale property up to improve the view and create pedestrian walkways? Why should a city resident be forced to walk around the block, when they could just stroll right through a residential college? And the New Haven Green is owned by a private group Alum, although they’re probably Yale lackey’s also.

  • alum

    how about fixing the street first so that it isnt a deadly 50 mile per hour highway thru the middle of campus? make it actually walkable and bikeable.

    yale univ and mr. ellis could perhaps push to find funding some of this traffic calming work?

    theres not any reason why speeds on this block of prospect should be more than 10 miles per hour. higher than that and students will continue to get killed and seriously injured here.

    that will do more for the appearnace and atractiveness of the cemetery than any amouunt of changes to the walls.

    landscaping also good.

    though the proposal is interesting – look at the cemeteries in central boston, nyc wall street area, etc., many have open fences and are a LOT more inviting than the grove street cemetery.

    lets revisit after the other problems are addressed

  • Ed Bishop

    At least Mr. Ellis finally gave SOME reason for opening up the wall: to entertain passing pedestrians. Now we can all weigh that ‘value’ next to those of the people protesting this ‘improvement.’

    As my family’s monuments in Grove St. Cemetery, including my ggggggggggggGrandfather’s (Connecticut’s first Lieutenant Governor), will be exposed not only to gawking pedestrians but to the corrosive pollution of the traffic, I am very gratified that so many local folks came out to protest.

    300+ years of thanks from my family to all those concerned citizens who ARE going to stop this short-sighted proposal.

    Note about the comment from Recent Alum: Building on The Green would likely raise an even bigger issue. When the stones from the original cemetery on The Green were moved to the new Grove St. location, they left most of the bodies there (including my ggggggggggggGrandfather’s).

  • @#1

    How come people always forget the minor detail that there are THOUSANDS OF BODIES UNDER THE NEW HAVEN GREEN??

  • H. Zaleski, MD

    As an undergraduate (Branford ’66) I found the Grove St. Cemetary both beautiful and peaceful. I also oppose the opening of the wall as described.

  • James T. Madison

    Grove Street Cemetery is a PRIVATE cemetery, a private status very much determined and intended by its creators, who correctly placed its control in the hands of its private board of Proprietors.

    Many people (including Rep. Pat Dillon, hooting unhelpfully from the back of the room) brandishing the fact that Grove Street Cemetery is not a Yale property seem to forget (or just mischievously omit) the fact that Grove Street Cemetery is not a New Haven or public property either.

    The creators of this Cemetery intended the residents at large of New Haven and the city’s and state’s politicians to have no more say over the Cemetery’s business than they do over Pat Dillon’s back yard. Its private status is one of the Cemetery’s most significant historical qualities. Rupturing the Cemetery’s private governing structure with excessive public directives would be a violent and unforgivable violation of its original, historical, intended design. Compared to such a violation, opening a few feet of wall is less than trivial.

    Yes, the Cemetery has historical status. But its age and status don’t make it any more public property than any other of the countless many historical places in Connecticut. And its private governance is far more historically significant than its architecture and landscaping. If Professor Stern’s modest, public and pedestrian friendly, amendments to the Cemetery are now to be taken as “violating” its quality and historical status, then nothing meaningful can be done with historical properties to adapt them meaningfully to changing conditions, and private governance is meaningless.

    Such a development would not be a proper consequence of historical preservation law, would likely violate the “takings” and other clauses of the federal and state constitutions, and would be the opposite of conducive to the preservation of such properties throughout the State.

    Busy bodies who seek to extend government and public meddling in Grove Street Cemetery’s affairs should tend to their own backyards and allow the private Proprietors to confer, listen to whom they choose and decide as they wish. That would all be in accordance with the designs of the creators of Grove Street Cemetery, and governance by hooting state representatives and agitated local residents most certainly would not.

    Here’s a message to hoot back to Rep Dillon: “Grove Street Cemetery is not your property or public property. So Keep off!”

  • joeyh

    I’m curious to know does every cemetary have private property status ? I don’t think any of them can be deemed “public”
    Can anyone walk into this graveyard and take a stroll ? Does it have visitors hours ? I can just say that i’m distantly related to the name on the first stone i see ( next to Stanton so says Bill Carson ) If one does travel by the St.Lawrence cemetary one can see the beautiful statues and mausaleums, makes me really want to be buried in a barren spot and erect the mightiest angel with terrible sword guarding over my perpetual rest and keeping kids from boozing it up on my greens. It would be sad to hear that this is just Market New Haven or some political sidestepping and created agenda – which in that case it’s a pretty terrifying message from your uppers

  • tired of narrowminded architects

    So they compiled photographs and drew some pictures. What about things like sound and airflow? Do these architects not have ears?

  • Y09

    “The dead shall be raised.”

    NOW I truly understand what those chums meant. “Almost dead” actually.

  • Robert Parker ’82

    If, as this article’s headline says, the cemetery’s “residents” are debating the removal of the wall… personally, I’d let the cemetery’s residents have whatever they want.

  • elm city 7

    #8- New Haven and it’s public streets do not belong to Yale- so stop hooting about traffic control, beautification and all the other nonsense that Yale students demand. Yale students are more than willing to stick thier nose in anyones business in the city, so we return the favor. The residents live here full time, as such our views on the cemetery are worth much more than a pack of four-year carpetbaggers. Go to your own hometown and make “meaningful” changes to your historic properties.

  • New Haven Resident

    I agree with the comment on sound. Opening it up allows sound into the cemetary and for those who have never been..it is one of the most peaceful places you can visit in New Haven. As for those who complain about the streets and traffic and most of all pedestrians, when is anyone going to ever point out that students in New Haven cross the street when lights CLEARLY say do not cross. Look at the accidents – almost every one of them occurs when people are crossing when the pedestrian light clearly says don’t walk.

  • James T. Madison

    TO: #13 (elm city 7)

    The public affairs and properties of New Haven do not include management or ownership of private property that happens to be in the City, including Grove Street Cemetery, whose private nature is so essential to its history and significance. A private board, the Cemetery’s Proprietors, manage its affairs, not the New Haven City government or its general residents.

    Further, Yale and its students, employees and faculty who reside in the City are properly entitled to as much input into public affairs as are any other residents of the City. That includes involvement in traffic control, beautification and all the other things included in New Haven’s public affairs, regardless of whether you personally deem such matters to be “nonsense.”

    Your desire to deny those of your fellow New Haven citizens who happen to attend Yale their rights to participate in the public life of the City because they reside there for a shorter period than you approve. Your desire puts you at odds with the constitution, traditions, laws and opinions of most people in this country, who generally disapprove of conditioning the exercise of political rights on minimum residency periods. Of course, Yale has been resident in New Haven since the early 18th Century, but who’s counting?

  • Grantee

    James, it does matter when the Propietor’s of the Cemetery are top heavy with Yale cronies. The cemetery is full of “general residents” of the city, and thier descendants still are outside the walls. So let’s avoid the general perception that this is another Yale “wink and a nod” agreement with itself in a back room over wine and cigars. Yes, Yale has overwhelming inluence in almost every aspect of decision making in the city, but give the residents a break. If not why don’t we make it easy and purchase the remainder of the city and move the residents somehwere else. Then Yale can do as it please without pesky citizens demanding thier city landmarks not be changed for sightseeing benefits. And yes, then you can dig up the Green and build some new colleges.

  • James T. Madison

    Grantee,

    It is not easy to discern what your actual point(s?) really is (are?), except that you seem to be against amendment of Grove Street Cemetery. OK.

    But you appear to be seriously confused about the nature of the historical relationship between Grove Street Cemetery and Yale, which has always been extremely close. ln 1796 a group led by U.S. Senator James Hillhouse (October 20, 1754 – December 29, 1832) planned a new cemetery on a location at what was then the edge of New Haven. Hillhouse was for many years the treasurer of Yale University and graduated from Yale in 1773. The efforts of his Yale-heavy group were officially recognized in October, 1797 when the State of Connecticut incorporated the cemetery as The New Burying Ground in New Haven. The grounds provided among other features a designated area for burial of those who attended Yale College.

    Contrary to your apparent misunderstanding, the creators of Grove Street Cemetery never intended one to obtain the right to determine Grove Street Cemetery management merely by purchasing a lot there, or by owning a house nearby, or by being a descendent of someone buried in the Cemetery or a former or current local homeowner. Some such thing seems to be what you want, but it’s not what the historical creators of Grove Street Cemetery or the state lawmakers wanted, and it’s not what the charter has ever provided.

    Instead, Grove Street Cemetery has always been a private cemetery run by its private board of Proprietors, many of whom have from the beginning included many people with exceptionally strong Yale affiliations (“top heavy with Yale cronies,” as you put it, from the 18th Century … and proud of it). Such intertwining of private ventures like Yale and the Grove Street Cemetery is entirely proper and is in the nature of private entities everywhere. The private nature of Grove Street Cemetery’s management is one of its most historically significant features.

    Ciao bella!

  • LMG

    To James T. Madison:

    I take strong objection to the comment you made in #8:

    “Busy bodies who seek to extend government and public meddling in Grove Street Cemetery’s affairs should tend to their own backyards and allow the private Proprietors to confer, listen to whom they choose and decide as they wish.”

    Here is a quote from the Grove Street Cemeteries National Historic Landmark Nomination, page 9:

    “Although they were a private corporation, the Proprietors clearly had in mind a cemetery that would be a community institution. They specifically allocated plots in the cemetery to the two Congregational societies in New Haven and to the Episcopal Church, with other plots reserved for Yale College, African Americans, New Haven paupers not otherwise provided for, and out of-towners who had the misfortune to die while traveling through New Haven. This pioneering private, multi-sectarian cemetery was paradoxically more inclusive than Connecticut’s earlier publicly supported cemeteries, which by the 1790s had become closely identified with the established tax-supported Congregational church. Timothy Dwight judged New Haven’s new cemetery “altogether a singularity in the world” and claimed that it astounded American and foreign visitors alike.”

    http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/samples/ct/grove.pdf

    Emphasis should be placed on the sentence: “the Proprietors clearly had in mind a cemetery that would be a community institution”. After all, Grove Street Cemetery was founded by New Haven citizens in an attempt to offer an alternative burying ground following the Yellow Fever plague of the 1790s.

    The concerned public and local governments who you incorrectly label as “busy bodies”, have just as much of a right to petition and speak their mind with regards to the future of Grove Street Cemetery as anyone else does.

    And while final decisions regarding all cemetery matters of course rests with the Proprietors themselves, it’s obvious that Hillhouse and other founders clearly meant for everyone to have an equal chance to have their voice heard.

    That goes just as much for Yale as it does Rep. Pat Dillon and others.

  • James T. Madison

    To LMG:

    You claim it is “obvious” that the “founders [of GSC] clearly meant for everyone to have an equal chance to have their voice heard.” Really? Those founders vested managment of their enterprise in a board of Proprietors that meets in complete privacy and opens its meetings to the public only at its sole discretion (as the Proprietors generously did in this case). Perhaps you’ll enlighten us all as to how the private governing structure chosen by the founders “clearly” expresses the intent you ascribe to them?

    If you undertake such an enlightenment, you may want to avoid citing to informal puffery taken out of context from modern documents like National Historic Landmark Nominations. Moreover, even within that document the language to which you cite describes the classes of people the Cemetery services, not the class of people who were intended by the founders to manage the Cemetery’s property.

    Yes, Timothy Dwight admired Grove Street Cemetery; he also admired Yale. (I’m not exactly sure why he gets center stage in your analysis anyway. He wasn’t a founder of the Cemetery.) And, yes, the creators of the Cemetery conjured a private civic organization to service a wide swath of the community; that’s also true of the Kiwanis Club, countless other private civic groups and even many religious groups (Mother Theresa did not exactly take a cramped vision of those she intended to service). It would be more than passing strange to suggest that Dwight’s admiration of Yale is evidence of his desire that “every” have “an equal chance to be heard” in selecting the University’s curriculum or faculty, for example, still less it landscaping decisions. Yet that is exactly where your reasoning leads. What would one make of anyone citing to the intent of founders of the local Kiwanis Club or St. Mary’s Church or Mother Theresa herself to service a broad reach of humanity as evidence of an intent that “everyone” have “an equal voice” in commenting (and more) on the management of properties belong to the Kiwanis, St. Mary’s or the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata? Yet you make precisely that leap in confusing the scope of the Cemetery’s mission with the intended locus of its management.

    Then there is Rep. Pat Dillon, who bellowed misleading imprecations from the back of the private room opened to her by the Proprietors. You claim that elected representatives have equal rights to make such misleading comments as everyone else. We will have to agree to disagree there, since I rather firmly believe that holding elected office carries additional responsibilities with the honor, especially responsibilities not to mislead the public. You dissent. By her actions, so does Rep. Dillon.

    By the way, your writing in some respects resembles the kind of boilerplate extruded by aides to certain state representatives. Is your contribution a case of knowing the kitty-cat by her paw?

  • New Haven Resident

    James T. Madison,

    I think the idea that Yale students should have an input into city decisions is ludicrous. They live here for the amount of time they take to finish their undergraduate or graduate degree. Most don’t register their cars here, they don’t pay taxes here, many of them don’t even register to vote here. Therefore they are not entitled to a say in what occurs. If they live here year round, register their cars here, pay taxes here then absolutely they should have a say. But saying that they are entitled to a say in what goes on simply because they attend school or work there is the same as saying that I should tell Hartford how to run their city because I work there or that I should have a say in what Wallingford does because my child attends a school there. Should they have input about properties that are owned by Yale..absolutely because they are a part of Yale. But Grove Street is not a Yale property and therefore unless they are a tax paying resident of New Haven or own a plot in Grove Street Cemetery I don’t see where their opinion should matter at all. Grove Street is not a profit making institution that is supported by Yale students and therefore their like or dislike of its appearance is inconsequential. It is the same as me having input into how my neighbors house looks simply because I live next to it. I may not like the fact that they never trim their hedges which are over 7 feet tall but unless the law says it is illegal I have to deal with it whether I feel it is appealing to look at or not and respect the fact that they have a right to maintain their property as they see fit. Such is the same with the cemetery. The walls are not there to be appealing to students or anyone else. They are there to provide sanctuary and quiet in a place where families come to grieve, bodies come to rest, and people come to reflect. It is a small oasis in the midst of a lot of chaos and traffic and it should be left as such.

  • LMG

    To James T. Madison (#19):

    While I respect your opinions, I for one put far more weight into what the Grove Street Cemetery’s Landmark application says than in your personal feelings on the matter. It has extensive bibliographic references and more than adequately shows the cemetery’s importance to the City, State and Nation. Further, it is backed by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, not to mention the Grove Street Cemetery’s own administrative body.

    In fact, the Proprietors themselves recognize that the cemetery is a “historically important land area” that has “cultural significance”, which shows a basic acknowledgement on their part that the cemetery’s wellbeing is of national concern.

    http://www.grovestreetcemetery.org/grove_street_cemetery_about_us_membership.htm

    Therefore, I do not understand why you take issue with local government and private citizens attempting to sway the final decisions of the Members of the Standing Committee. Just as the Standing Committee have the right to make the final decisions regarding the property they oversee, members of the public have the right to petition and speak their mind at annual meetings to which they are invited to attend.

  • James T. Madison

    LMG -

    The Landmark Application is a modern, secondary source document explaining why the Cemetery is of sufficient historical significance to warrant inclusion in the federal registry. Use of its language for other purposes is quotation out of context. To determine who runs the Cemetery, reference to the Application’s bibliography for the charter document is the extent of the Application’s proper use.

    Consider: “the Proprietors clearly had in mind a cemetery that would be a community institution.” The founders of many private civic institutions intend “a community institution.” But such founders do not thereby intend to vest anyone outside the institution with authority over the operation of the institution. Pressing the quoted language from the Cemetery’s Application into service to circumvent the Cemetery’s historic charter is wrong and ahistorical.

    James Hillhouse’s group was largely motivated by their perception that the PUBLICLY managed burial grounds on the New Haven Green had failed in essential respects. That perception was a major reason why the new Cemetery’s governance was expressly NOT placed in public hands. Instead, a private, civic institution uses its own judgment in serving the community. It’s founding documents correctly express that intent. The Application does not even try to address it.

    ““It’s not a Yale property. It’s a community property,” Connecticut State Representative Patricia Dillon shouted. But Grove Street Cemetery is clearly NOT “a community property.” It is the property of a private civic institution that has always maintained close ties with, and mutual respect for, Yale, from the time of the Cemetery’s creation by a man who was for many years Yale’s own treasurer. The Proprietors would be completely justified in giving consideration to the needs of the Cemetery’s largest and closest neighbor, with which it shares at least three boundaries and a centuries-long close relationship. Grove Street Cemetery’s Landmark designation was intended to preserve it. Use of Application language to support increased public or governmental meddling expressly rejected by the Cemetery’s historical creators would perversely undermines one of the Cemetery’s most historically important features: its private governance.

    Public officials and others attempting to impose an ahistorical “community property” identity on the Cemetery are not just “local government and private citizens attempting to sway the final decisions of the Members of the Standing Committee.” They are attempting something far more destructive to the historical fabric of Grove Street Cemetery than anything contemplated by the modest and entirely proper updating proposed by Dean Stern. Use of the Application language to support such an attempt is inappropriate, to say the least.

  • James T. Madison

    LMG-

    You wrote that “members of the public have the right to petition and speak their mind at annual meetings to which they are invited to attend.”

    The first sentence of this YDN article ends with words “the Grove Street Cemetery Proprietors’ annual meeting at the Graduate Club, an event made open to the public for the first time Tuesday evening.”

    Historical details.

  • LMG

    To James T. Madison (#22 and #23):

    In an attempt to make this discussion clearer, let me state first that I personally did not support the changes to the Prospect Street wall because I am a preservationist who believes in retaining as much of the original intent of a place as possible. Since the wall was designed to keep out noise and unwanted traffic, I am happy to see the proposal withdrawn.

    However, there is no attempt on my part to push an “ahistorical community property identity” onto the cemetery. At no point have I stated that the cemetery is operated by anything less than a private, non-sectarian corporation.

    Further, I also happily acknowledge that National Landmark status does not grant the federal government any power to make the cemetery owners maintain their property. Grove Street’s operations are fully under the control of its Board of Directors and whatever decisions they make are the decisions that stand.

    What I have stated, however, is that Senator Hillhouse, in cooperation with the other founders of the cemetery, was acting as a New Haven citizen first and foremost when he attempted to better his own community by moving the burial grounds away from the marketplace (now known as the Green). He recognized community need, both in terms of health and esthetics, and used his talents as lawyer, politician and developer accordingly. The fact that he was closely associated with the University only further supports his close ties to all aspects of what make up both Federalist and modern New Haven.

    The current Members of the Standing Committee have adopted the mantle of Senator Hillhouse in this regard by recognizing that the cemetery is of premier historical, religious and community importance. If I can infer, this is probably why they allowed for an open meeting regarding the issue of Prospect Street. Many current New Haven residences have ancestors who are buried there. And while not Proprietors (which requires ownership of a burial plot), they have an invested interest in making sure that this site is preserved in the best way possible. As a result, I thank the administrative body of Grove Street Cemetery for their efforts to listen to all concerned parties.

    However, the community’s right to express their opinions in all forms of media and public assemblies should not in anyway be confused with the issue of whether or not people are well-informed enough to understand the organizational realities of the cemetery that they wish to either change or protect.

    If Representative Patricia Dillon and others were loud or disruptive or uninformed during the public meeting, then I will take your word for it. There is no question, however, that she had the right to speak, as granted her by the Standing Committee’s desire to hear public opinion.

  • Pingback: My Homepage

  • Pingback: http://hugojesus.com/2011/07/18/my-work-in-the-area/

  • Pingback: investing in silver

  • Pingback: watch bleach online

  • Pingback: خبير

  • Pingback: buy vine followers

  • Pingback: how to bet on horse racing

  • Pingback: easy healthy recipes

  • Pingback: how to increase sales

  • Pingback: seo thailand

  • Pingback: Afterburn Fuel Mike Chang

  • Pingback: Best RO Filter

  • Pingback: How to Astral Project

  • Pingback: north topsail beach rentals

  • Pingback: fantasy football asia

  • Pingback: uk