Question: What caused housing prices in CA to shoot through the roof?

[Squatch]

Per this thread, what caused housing prices in CA to reach insanely high prices?

Very curious...

[MadHound]

1. Plain and simple, two things

Stupidity and greed. Does it every time.

[Squatch]

2. Why is this a CA phenomenon, most notably?

[pitohui]

41. it isn't

anywhere you have location, jobs, lifestyle in one place, you have this

cottages have sold on the jersey shore for one million dollars as teardowns

london real estate could send you screaming back to silicon valley in a hurry

[smitty]

7. Housing prices

have skyrocketed in a number of states, not just California. The population of the United States is nearly 300 million (and growing, it'll be 400 million by 2050) so there's a huge demand for housing coupled with a lagging supply. In addition, there's a lot of speculation occurring; many houses are being bought by people who aren't living in them but holding them in anticipation of prices going up even more. Most of the big housing increases are occurring on the two coasts. Housing prices on Long Island (where I used to live) are as steep as California's.

Eventually the bubble will burst. Of course, I've been saying that for years, yet the prices still go up.

[crikkett]

3. Prop 13 and the beautiful weather!

(Prop 13 is California's referendum from the 80s that froze property taxes.)

(the weather, not our fault.)

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

5. Yes, that's the most important factor

and paired with the explosive population growth.

[MindPilot]

13. Location, location, location...how can we be so rich and so blue

On the the Pacific rim, a university system that pumps out a huge supply of science & technology people, an economy that's so strong, not even the Bush administration as been able to fuck it up, a huge agricultural base, and of course the big money business that everyone hates but will never do without; the film industry.

Did someone mention the weather?

[Retrograde]

34. a nice scapegoat, but

"(Prop 13 is California's referendum from the 80s that froze property taxes.) "

Although I actually voted against it in 1978, Prop 13 IMHO is used as a convenient excuse. My CA property taxes - based on the amount I paid for my house ~20 years ago - go up regularly every year. It's just a smaller percentage than they would have jumped otherwise: this is actually an inducement to stay where I am rather than buy elsewhere. And those people paying the inflated prices now will pay property taxes based on what those houses are assessed at when they change hands. My town recently voted to add a special parcel tax in addition to property taxes to fund some pet projects: some of the opponents actually did the calculations and claimed that the total amount of property taxes collected in the city is roughly what it would be if Prop 13 weren't in place, due to turnover and new construction.

Can't argue about the weather though. Or the scenery.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. A variety of factors.

High salaries
High resident turnover
Low mortgage rates
High demand
Limited room for expansion in places like the Bay Area and LA.

[Tims]

20. Not really

Salaries are no where near the level to justify these prices and demand is only high because so many people are locked out due to prices. Limits on expansion are more a result of the escalating prices rather than a cause. That is, the high land prices on undeveloped land deters developers rather than the lack of undeveloped or underdeveloped property.

Residential turnover rates do effect prices because every time a house sells, the owner wants to more than to break even and the real estate agencies, lenders and title companies all take their substantial cuts.

The biggest problem is unrestrained lending, not low mortgage rates. Probably 90% of people obtaining new mortgages today would never have qualified for such loans in the days before banking deregulation. Also lenders today have the ability to obtain almost unlimited funds from the US Treasury to back their loans (hence banks no longer have to offer attractive interest rates on savings in order to have the cash to back their loans). Human nature is such that if you can get the loan, you will buy the house, regardless of whether you can realy afford it. 25 years ago lenders rarely loaned a person an amount more than the equivalent of his annual salary before taxes and most people (except those who qualified for VA loans) could not avoid having to come up with the required 20% down payment. Banks were also more cautious about a person's credit history and job stability. Today bad credit and an unstable work history only tends to raise you loan fees and interest rates, but not lock you out.

As long as lenders can come up with ways of financing these outrageously priced properties there will always be buyers and thus nothing to slow the escalating prices. There is no real competition in the housing market so prices tend to rise as high as the market will bear. Without realistic lending restraints, prices will continue to rise.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. Interesting points...

>Salaries are no where near the level to justify these prices

Yet somehow people are buying houses. Granted, there are foreclosures, but it's not as if nobody can afford a house.

>Demand is only high because so many people are locked out due to
>prices.

This seems somewhat counterintuitive. The simple fact of the matter is that if you put a house on the market, especially in the Bay Area, it will be snatched up in no time.

>Limits on expansion are more a result of the escalating prices rather
>than a cause.

If we're talking about high housing prices in California, we're basically talking about LA and the Bay Area to a large extent. Both of those places have run out of flat land into which they can expand in the cores of their urban areas.

>That is, the high land prices on undeveloped land deters developers
>rather than the lack of undeveloped or underdeveloped property.

The developers haven't been detered, though. They're building on the fringes of these urban areas, where land is available and cheaper. However, there isn't room for more housing in SF, LA, etc. The land is simply gone.

>Probably 90% of people obtaining new mortgages today would never
>have qualified for such loans in the days before banking
>deregulation.

90% is a gross exaggeration, but I agree that there are people qualifying for loans who otherwise would not have. I also agree that this is, in part, responsible for the increase in prices. However, prices were increasing before lending practices changed, and that can only be explained by the factors I cited.

>Without realistic lending restraints, prices will continue to rise.

On this point I think we all agree, however I fear prices will continue to rise even if lending restraints are put into place.

[SemperEadem]

23. the high salaries

apply to a very small percentage of the population. They've been cutting salaries like crazy out there--most folks have 4-5 mortgages, have extended families living in one property.. very few of the teaming masses of the working poor can truly afford to purchase a home... most that do are a paycheck away from ruin.

The high salaries is a myth.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. "The high salaries is a myth."

The working poor aren't the ones buying houses, and I know plenty of couples who are making enough to afford a house with one mortgage. The per-capita income statistics bear this out, as well.

[SemperEadem]

29. Like I said

that applies to a very small percentage of the total population of southern california.

[BeTheChange]

36. You are right the working poor arent driving up the prices..

The speculators are. The working poor are getting ARM loans and are going to be in a bad place in 3-5 years because they are leveraging themselves to the hilt.

[n2doc]

6. cheap interest rates, criminally unsafe lending practices, greed

Bubbles, no matter if in stocks or houses, follow similar patterns. Lenders willing to loan money under really stupid conditions (i.e. no money down, zero principle payback, 40 year timeframes, ultra-low intitial interest rates) to people eager to "ride the gravy train" to riches. Investors, having foresaken the stock market, buying up houses as investments and reducing the pool of housing, so that people panic. Panicked people willing to do anything to buy an overpriced house "before it gets too expensive to buy". California is not alone in this, Look at NYC, DC, Miami, Seattle, Portland...they all are insanely overpriced compared to rental costs (which are more tied to what most people can really afford).

It will pop. The aftermath may be a long term stagnation until wages catch up, a slow drop in prices, or a panic. But at some point 2 things will happen: The investor community will start to dump houses (they are estimated to hold 25% of the houses sold in recent times) and/or some crisis will take place that causes interest rates to spike, driving up foreclosure rates and releasing a flood of housing availability and bad news reports that will greatly reduce buyer demand. Because housing prices are so high in relation to rents holding on to houses and renting will not generate positive cash flow, and too many investors aren't prepared to hold out for years while housing prices recover. Even stagant housing prices spell trouble. Some of this is beginning to happen in some places. But remember, there is a lot of money riding on this, and so we will not see it reported in the mainstream press until it is well underway.

[BeTheChange]

37. Sacramento is reaching that point

They have more homes on the market right now then in the last decade or something... its abnormal and they think it may be a sign of the cooling.

[schrodingers_cat]

8. Supply vs demand

apparently there are still enough people willing and able to pay these exorbitant prices. There are still bidding wars on the houses going up for sale in my neighborhood - typically 10-15 bids per house. Fixer uppers next to the freeway go for half a million in my neighborhood. To understand things a bit better, the average pay in California cities far exceeds that in other parts of the country. It must be this way to retain valuable employees. Although on that note, there are also alot of companies laying off the more 'disposable' workers in order to replace them with cheaper, hungrier wage slaves. It happened to me, it happened to my husband, (and it's happened to friends and neighbors), but things turned out for the better, luckily.

[Tims]

21. Salary surveys

Nationwide salary surveys of most professions show only modest differences between different areas of the country. California is indeed on the top of the scale but if you compare the salaries of most professions in large urban areas (excluding rural areas and small midwestern and southern cities), there is rarely more than a 20% difference across the country. There are indeed bigger difference for skilled non-professional jobs, but these jobs do not drive the housing market significantly.

In my profession (Electrical Engineering) the best improvement I could expect moving to the San Jose area (the "center of the world" for electronics) would be a 10% to 15% salary increase assuming the move did not also involve a promotion. I have a friend working in San Jose who says the house I'm living in in Houston that I paid about $140K for (today maybe worth $200K) would cost him over $1 million and would still require him to make at least an hour commute to his job. A 15% salary increase (of which I would realize much less because of higher taxes) hardly makes any sense to consider.

The sad thing is banks are willing to give my friend a loan to buy the $1 million dollar home. He's smart enough not to do it, so he continues to live in a 1100 square foot "Town House" while trying to convince his wife that living in California is just not worth it.

It's not the pay that keeps people in California, it is the fact that jobs are increasingly hard to come by. But there is also the perception that California offers greater opportunities than other parts of the country, and if you do loose your job, there will be another for you down the street.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Simple: demand exceeds supply.

California is a net gainer in terms of population. Combine that with exclusionary zoning and a distinct preference for building single family detached housing even in places were higher density housing would make more sense. Compared to the Northeast, townhouses and condos are rare here.

Another reason is the twisted influence of the famous property tax law Prop. 13. Local governments rely on sales tax revenues to fund local operations and services. This creates a perverse incentive to encourage retail over residential construction.

Lots of other factors, but I'm still working on my first cup of coffee.

[readmylips]

10. CORRUPTION...one word

Realtors in CA are the most corrupt on Earth. They're the ones that get the ball rolling on inflating prices on homes, apartments, rentals, etc.

[MindPilot]

11. It seems like there is no stopping the demand

My next door neighbor just sold for $703,000. It was on the market for less than a month. Another property near me, a 1000 square foot place with no yard, $649,000.

[wiggs]

12. From OC

In addition to all the reasons listed in other posts....People are willing to go into hock up to their eyeballs. Not only are they buying very expensive homes, they are taking out loans on the homes they have sometimes using unfavorable loan packages. (We've been in same house since '89 without a second or home equity loan).

Low savings rates + high debt + mass retirement soon + drop in stock market + housing bubble burst + high national debt + inflation + outsourcing = mass bankruptcies + lower wages = shrinking middle class = concentration of wealth into fewer hands = neocon wet dream

[LibDemAlways]

19. "People are willing to go into hock....." Absolutely.

I know several people in my suburban neighborhood who've "moved up" to million plus dollar McMansions recently and they all took out million dollar mortgages to do so. In one case, the people have leased out their existing older home at an exorbitant fee in order to be able to make the "interest only" monthly loan payment on the big, new house.

Many Californians are image conscious. They want to look great, drive an expensive car, and live in a prestigious neighborhood -- and whether they can afford it or not, they'll figure out a way.

[MercutioATC]

14. The three most important factors in any real estate valuation:

Location, location, location

[Dora]

16. Earthquake, earthquake, earthquake.

If the house is a rockin' don't bother knockin'.

[MercutioATC]

17. Insurance, insurance, insurance

Anybody wonder why insurance companies keep issuing multi-million dollar policies on houses that shake themselves to pieces every few years?

[trackfan]

28. Earthquakes aren't covered

by standard homeowners policies here. By law, they make available to you additional coverage (usually from another company) for earthquake damage. It is very expensive, and I have passed on it for the last 5 years. My house was built in 1922; it has been through several earthquakes and is still standing, so I figure I'll take the risk another year. (Unless I somehow come up with the extra money to pay for the policy).

[MindPilot]

30. Not even remotely true

First of all your regular homeowner's policy doesn't cover *any* damage due to earth movement. Secondly the houses don't "shake themselves to pieces"; mine was built in 1927 and still standing after riding through who knows how many quakes.

And the policies aren't for the value of the house; they cover reconstruction costs which for a standard million dollar McMansion may be about 200k.

[MercutioATC]

31. O.K., what about mudslides?

Hell, I'm learning new stuff all of the time....

[MindPilot]

33. Same deal -- not covered, but this is grey area

If the earth moves out from under your house, definitely not covered. However, if the mud slides down the hill and *into* your house, now it gets weird. What caused it? Was it a flood? Was it subsidence? Was it a landslide? Was it the result of a previous fire.

In fact there are a group of homeowners here who are suing the city because their houses are heading down the hill and they claim the city has some responsibility to because of the testing that was done or not done before the permits were issued, etc. Complex case.

What the insurance companies are really worried about are wildfires and mold.

[Xithras]

39. Mudslides? Yes. Landslides? No.

Believe it or not, if a hill slides onto your house, your coverage depends on the water content of the dirt.

As stupid as this sounds, it has some fairly solid reasoning: Mudslides are caused by water saturating and undermining the ground, and can therefore be considered flood damage. Flood damage is backed by federal flood insurance, so it doesn't cost much to cover a house.

Landslides, on the other hand, are considered natural erosion events and are simply seen as a common hazard that all humans share. Common natural hazards that cannot be protected against are typically not insurable.

[MercutioATC]

48. Interesting...

It makes sense, but I'd never heard that before.

[SemperEadem]

24. That's the main reason why I would never buy a house in CA

After having lived through the Landers/Big Bear quake and the Northridge quakes, there is no way I'd buy any property in CA. With other natural disasters, at least you can see them coming--with earthquakes, they happen without warning. That's asking too much for me.

I like living over bedrock, thank you.

[JDPriestly]

15. Several factors

and they all have to do with how great it is to live in California

1) When the stock market fell, rich people who had been gambling on stocks decided to "invest" what was left of their gambling stakes in real estate. As they contributed to the stock market bubble a in the late '90s, they contributed to the housing bubble in the early 2000s. There are a lot of rich people in California, especially in San Francisco and L.A. People from the heartland would not believe the concentration of wealth in the hands of some people out here. If you are planning a vacation to California, you should plan to pretend to be looking for a high priced house. You could entertain yourself for a week just looking at mansions and the entrance fees would be minimal.

2) Immigration, especially illegal immigration. California, especially southern California, is the entry port not just for all that stuff you buy at Walmart, but also for immigrants, poor and rich. They need housing, and there just isn't enough of it so they crowd into tiny apartments. The high cost of housing is just one effect of immigration. Immigration also breeds gangs, crime, and increased health care, education and other infrastructure needs. Who should pay for the costs of immigration? Right now Californians who came here legally pay most of the costs, and one of the costs is the high price of housing. By the way, immigration also provides a low-cost, near slave cast that works to raise the standard of living for those in the higher casts, and that makes life here for those who use the slave labor quite pleasant.

3) Bottlenecks in building new housing. Most of the flat land that lends itself easily to construction has been built on. Building on slopes in earthquake country is challenging and costly. That drives the cost of new houses up. Buildable land is scarce and therefore extremely expensive. It's not the houses that cost so much. It's the land.

4) Builders are greedy. They build lots of high cost luxury housing, and are unwilling or unable to build moderately priced affordable housing. Certain areas of LA are viewed as posh. Builders put their hearts and souls into putting up high-priced condos and houses in those areas, and ignore the low-priced market. Why should they build a house that will sell for $200,000 if they can build fifty condos at an average price of $600,000 each? There are proposals for requiring builders to build a percentage of affordable housing in order to get building permits. The problem is that builders don't want to build the low and high priced housing in the same area. The less posh areas are balking because they fear that builders will build the "affordable," ugly, unlivable, cheap "condos" next door to them. This is a legitimate fear. I live in a relatively poor area. About twenty years ago, some affordable housing was built near me. It is an eyesore and police cars have to patrol the area in which it is built and make arrests on a regular basis just to keep the peace. That is unacceptable. NIMBY is not just some cranky idea. There is a reason for it. The affordable housing should be built in the same areas as the swanky digs.

5) Culturally, Los Angeles and San Francisco are the Athens of the United States. When I first arrived in L.A., I thought that this is how Paris was in the Age d'Or, the Golden Age. The arts flourish. In addition to Hollywood, the Valley and Malibu with all their opportunities and fascinating craziness, a vibrant spiritual and intellectual life is available to rich and poor. Educational opportunities abound as do coffee houses, artistic performances, lectures. We live relatively near CalTech. Imagine being able to attend lectures at CalTech for free on a regular basis. Do you understand the allure? And all that in a climate in which you can spend an enormous amount of time outdoors because it rarely rains and never snows. It's about as close to heaven as you can get, that's why prices are so high.

6) California is beautiful. It appears to be a great place to live. We all love the great weather and the picturesque landscapes, the mountains and the ocean. The desert flowers in the spring are beautiful beyond belief as are the sunsets year round. We do not think about the future. We do not think that this is a desert with virtually no water. We all just think about how much we love it here and how much we love living here.

7) California is politically liberal. Gay or lesbian, mixed marriage, star struck, yogi, Scientologist, evangelical, conservative Jew, whatever makes you you, whatever makes you unique or different, you are pretty safe, relatively free to be yourself in California. That is the most precious, most wonderful thing about California. Check out the housing prices. This is just as true in conservative Orange County as in liberal San Francisco.

So, in a nutshell, that's why housing prices are so high here.

[livetohike]

22. Great post

and right on, imo :-).

[MindPilot]

32. Great post! You should also mention the agriculture

California has vast expanses of some of the most productive farmland in the world. The climate allows two, three, sometimes four crops a year. We grow everything from rice to pistachios; you can count on one hand the crops that won't grow in the Central Valley.

I remember my first trip through the LA area; I was just amazed that there would be--nestled between the freeways and buildings--30 or 40 acres of strawberries with a couple of oil rigs in the middle of the fields.

[anitar1]

35. As a former Californian, I have to ask. How do you like the

unending smog,traffic gridlock and crime? When I go back for a visit, I wonder how I ever lived there. It was different when I was a young teen, but that was ages ago. Poor California. I feel sad when I am there.

[MindPilot]

46. Yup. The entire state is smog, gridlock and crime.

Stay away; no-one should live here.

Did I mention wildfires and earthquakes? Yeah all the time, can't go out because of the fires; can't stay in because of the quakes. Have to spend your entire life in the doorway. Gotta go; an illegal alien just shot my neighbor and stole my car. Doesn't matter; there's too much traffic to get it out of the driveway.

[DaveJ]

18. The weather...

is as absolutely perfect as it gets, and access to mountains, forests, deserts, whatever you want is there in California.

That's all there is to it.

[Cleita]

27. Low property taxes via the Jarvis ammendment, Proposition 13

in the seventies. This is why the average worker can't afford a home for his/her family and other very wealthy people can own several homes, even when they are from out of state or even foreign countries. The Saudi royal family owns a lot of property on the affluent West Side (towards the beach) of Los Angeles County.

Of course a trailer on the coast overlooking the ocean would have greater value than even many large homes inland. I know where this location is and I knew many well-off business owners who were on a waiting list to buy a trailer there. One of the trailer dwellers was an employer of mine.

[rinsd]

38. That doesn't make sense......

"This is why the average worker can't afford a home for his/her family and other very wealthy people can own several homes, even when they are from out of state or even foreign countries"

If property taxes were higher how would the worker than magically afford the property? Do you think property would have a lower value if it was taxed at a higher rate? How would this prevent any wealthy person from owning more than one home?

[Cleita]

42. Historically this is what happened.

When the property taxes were reduced, speculators came into the state of California. They started a frenzy of buying homes, fixing them up and even adding on rooms to resell them at a higher price, which they did. Eventually as the trend spread, especially in the more desirable areas of California, prices got pushed higher and higher to the point where people were living 30 to 60 miles out in the boonies away from their jobs because they couldn't even afford a shack closer by.

My late husband and his ex-wife bought a home in Santa Monica back in the fifties for $30,000. It was a tiny two bedroom, one bath bungalow, but in a nice neighborhood. When they divorced, he let his ex-wife have the house. It was just before the Jarvis ammendment was passed. Twenty years later she sold the run down home with no improvements for $600,000. Again it was a realtor who planned on holding on to it long enough to make a profit. As you can see an ordinary forty year old house is too pricey for the average family, don't you think?

In the meantime it seems like in the eighties the Japanese were buying properties all over California. I asked a Japanese client of mine why? He said because even the most expensive properties were much cheaper than Tokyo. Again the prices of property went up.

Now the moderately well off, might own several properties including vacation property that they wouldn't own if they couldn't afford the additional property taxes. I live in a vacation area. Most of the vacation homes are empty a good part of the year, yet the people who work for the tourist businesses are crammed into trailer parks and run down rentals because they can't afford to live where they work.

If the Jarvis ammendment were to be reversed, many of us believe that those vacation homes will come on the market. Those homes will most likely come down in price once there is a glut of them in the market, maybe making them affordable again for working families.

So it doesn't take a really wealthy person to own a home and a vacation home, but the chances that they are more expensive to maintain than is worthwhile will make them think of selling. I have a friend who has a nice cabin in the mountains, but she told me she would sell if the property taxes ever went up because it would be more than she could afford.

Also, what about people like David Letterman, a resident of New York, who also has a home in Malibu. I'll bet if he paid the same taxes he paid in New York, he probably would stay at a hotel in the future and sell the Malibu home.

You see because luxury housing got so expensive, celebrities and other wealthy types have been moving into neighborhoods, like in Santa Monica, into ordinary homes that once housed a work force for Douglas Aircraft pushing the workers further and further out into the desert communities surround LA.

I'm sorry if I am rambling, but it's something I have been following for thirty years, and I really blame the Jarvis Ammendment mainly, although there are other factors, for triggering this phenomena.

On edit: Also, raising property taxes especially on out-of-state owners and on second homes would go a long way in solving California's budget problems. However, our present Governator rejected the idea when it was presented to him as a solution by Warren Buffett.

[rinsd]

44. It still doesn't make sense.....

You are saying the wealthy would sell a vacation home in $1M plus range because they don't want to pay extra dough in taxes? and instead would stay in a wealthy hotel?

"If the Jarvis ammendment were to be reversed, many of us believe that those vacation homes will come on the market. Those homes will most likely come down in price once there is a glut of them in the market, maybe making them affordable again for working families."

Such a dramatic devaluing would destroy those working families that currently own their own home. It also doesn't make sense that the wealthy would sell a vacation home because of tax burden unless they couldn't afford the home in the first place(which I could see since many people are mortagaged to the eyeballs)

I'm not saying low property taxes have zero effect but as a factor in this boom I think their role is much smaller.

Much bigger factors in the recent home boom would be the low mortgage rate and more traditional lures of CA such as the weather and jobs.

" On edit: Also, raising property taxes especially on out-of-state owners and on second homes would go a long way in solving California's budget problems. However, our present Governator rejected the idea when it was presented to him as a solution by Warren Buffett."

I've got not problem with that. Nor would I have a problem with changing prop 13 to not include commercial property.

[Cleita]

47. Believe whatever you like but the history of the skyrocketing housing

market from 1977 on is there for you to read. Google has all the links. Proposition 13 I don't believe ever covered commercial property. If property taxes were raised on rentals it would be passed on to the poor who are renting. If it's office space then I say go for it. The corporations can well afford it. The big problem IMHO is single family residences on properties that are less than 1/4 acre. I think the law should remain as it is.

My objection is if you can afford a second vacation home or condo or whatever, then you can afford the increased taxes or not bother to have one. A primary single family home on more than that, which is not a working ranch, is usually a large rich home within city limits with lots of bedrooms and baths. I say tax them when they reach an over consumption level.

The way things are now is that only the rich can afford to own property and many of the poor can barely afford to rent, let alone own. It's time to take care of this housing inequality. Also, the rich use more resources like water, electricity and roads. They aren't paying for it with their taxes. Screw them.

BTW, if a Republican suggested ways to force down property prices, there wouldn't be a whimper from anyone about equity. They would say that the person made a bad deal. Too f-ing bad. I'm tired of the poor working slag bearing the burden of society, while the wealthy don't pay taxes for what they use and continue to make money off of those who can least afford it. Screw them.

[pitohui]

40. location, climate, jobs

supply and demand, limited supply, pretty much unlimited demand, and it ain't gonna change any time soon

lots of cheap real estate in places with miserable climates, tornadoes, and no jobs

[petite marmotte]

43. I Too a Former Californian

and I miss it. Home prices are exactly what made me leave the SF Bay Area. Now in WNC, for the first time, I was able to buy a home. Sigh. So, it's a trade off. I guess. But it feels like going from Babylon to Hooterville. I miss California weather. And the palpable feel of hipness, of free expression. I don't miss paying $1600 a month rent.

[CountAllVotes]

45. Welcome to the DU petite marmotte

:hi: :hi: :hi: :D and Welcome!


:kick: