Economics of Land Use in Dallas County (Houston, Plano: middle-class, section 8)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not jumping to conclusions I've read and heard others but especially this Patrick Kennedy guy go off on various topics over the years. He wants to change virtually everything about how people in Dallas live and make business.....tree mandates, un-zone nearly all new build off street parking, tear down vital freeways and let nature take its course afterwards, greatly minimize required green space around new builds, virtually eliminate footage minimums and on and on. And yes he flat out wants zoning changes that would allow investors to tear-down SFHs and build duplexes and triplexes and in some cases apartments (if he's recently softened his tone about this I'm willing to listen).
Anyone who thinks corporate owned residential RE is problem now just wait until BlackRock or some REIT/PE fund buys out multiple adjoining homes and installs flatpack tiny homes or short box container homes leaving virtually no yard space and then plants, "For Rent" signs out front. That'll be beautiful.
I'm a boomer and I plan to be here a long time. However, the more I hear and read about planner types and their desire to morph Dallas into a new version of old, cramped, tight, anti-car cities the more worried I get. If I preferred Baltimore or Philadelphia I'd move.
I'd tend to support zoning changes that would shake things up in lightly populated areas and your point about zones around industry and other spots like ex-shopping malls etc. makes sense to me. But don't risk wrecking old like neighborhoods in the process.
Who’s proposing that? No, I don’t agree with everything that comes out of Patrick Kennedy’s mouth. What I’m advocating for is what we already have in Dallas. How’s a neighborhood like Junius Heights in Old East Dallas gonna kill this city? That’s what people are advocating for. Those areas have existed for over 100 years and are highly desirable. It’s like people bring up the highest intensity density possible and claim that’s what people are trying to do. Dallas will NEVER be NYC, Philly, Baltimore, or Chicago. The density of Highland Park is what I would like and that alone would completely change the city. Transit doesn’t work well with very low density and it sure doesn’t help with the housing crisis.
Your knees should be tired the way many of y’all are still jumping to conclusions. The average price of a home in Dallas is $407,000. It has since fallen from a record high of 422K. In 2019 it was 291K. The average median income (58K) living in Dallas cannot afford that. There’s 33,000 housing units that the city needs, but no solutions from the boomers, only showing up to city hall to demand what they don’t want. If increasing density isn’t a tool that will help then what is? (Disclaimer - there are boomers who aren’t in opposition to change or solutions) Those same boomers and people who are older are part of the reason this country today hasn’t progressed much. IDK if that happens to everyone when they get older, but no city is a museum. Unless, it’s a neighborhood that is historically protected and that have other ways like deed restrictions, limiting what you can build. The median age of Dallas is 41 but the voting age is over 62. So, there’s a disconnect between what the average younger person would want and the folks who’ve reached retirement age. Dallas homeownership is in the 40ish% range. They say a healthy city has 60% homeownership. If the majority of Dallasites can’t buy a home in Dallas, that’s not a good thing.
1. I doubt any top 20 population city in the US has 60% homeownership. Most big cities come in well under 50%.
2. Younger people don't vote how is that my fault?
3. We should make efforts to increase density where lower and moderate income people live. Not allow developers, REITs, PE and Hedge Funds to buy homes in more established and wealthy areas, where lower income people do not live, level SFHs and build mini-homes, du, tri and quadplexes. All selling for top dollar.
4. If this thing goes through as is and someone near my old place makes the first move. I might wait until my tenant's lease is up, tear down the house and build four or five condo over single garage micro-homes fanned out around a giant macerator pump to grind the sewage so the city can deal with it.
5. Houston has some of the rules like what you guys want and ~1% higher home ownership rates. Keep in mind Houston invoked tiny lot size minimums 25 years ago.
Other than life safety constraints such as sewer infrastructure, there is no legitimate reason for a city to impose single-family-detached-on-minimum-lot-size requirements. This kind of thinking grew out of California leftism and disrespect for the market. It doesn't belong in Texas.
Take your big-government-dictate-property-rights ethos elsewhere, please. Oh, and "community character" is not a valid reason to impose it. Let the market work. If you don't like a duplex near you, then the burden should be entirely on you to have to move.
When some would prefer to significantly change a well understood system of constraints long in place. A system that all existing buyers have made reliance on it's up to those desiring change to make their case in the light of day and over time.
What the change agents have done is attempt to shift the burden onto existing homeowners. I reject that.
So far as leftism. All you have to do is Google-in minimum lots size or SFH zoning and nearly all of the first 50 links will be from left leaning sources panning lot size restrictions.
Other than life safety constraints such as sewer infrastructure, there is no legitimate reason for a city to impose single-family-detached-on-minimum-lot-size requirements. This kind of thinking grew out of California leftism and disrespect for the market. It doesn't belong in Texas.
Take your big-government-dictate-property-rights ethos elsewhere, please. Oh, and "community character" is not a valid reason to impose it. Let the market work. If you don't like a duplex near you, then the burden should be entirely on you to have to move.
I’m confused. It is Leftists, who demand the unquestioning celebration of “diversity”, who are most militant in pushing for these kinds of zoning policy changes across the board, is it not?
And move is exactly what people do as they see neighborhood development and demographic changes they don’t like, contributing to ever more sprawl as the process repeats itself over and over. When higher (or middle) income people leave these “transitioning” communities en masse, what’s left is a decaying, poorer, and more crime ridden husk. You and those who think like you seem to believe this is a good thing.
The only difference between a swarm of locusts and Leftists is that locusts don't know any better. Leftists never learn from their failures or question their deranged ideologies. In fact they double down, leaving a path of destruction in every community they infest.
I’m confused. It is Leftists, who demand the unquestioning celebration of “diversity”, who are most militant in pushing for these kinds of zoning policy changes across the board, is it not?
And move is exactly what people do as they see neighborhood development and demographic changes they don’t like, contributing to ever more sprawl as the process repeats itself over and over. When higher (or middle) income people leave these “transitioning” communities en masse, what’s left is a decaying, poorer, and more crime ridden husk. You and those who think like you seem to believe this is a good thing.
The only difference between a swarm of locusts and Leftists is that locusts don't know any better. Leftists never learn from their failures or question their deranged ideologies. In fact they double down, leaving a path of destruction in every community they infest.
Yeah, I'm not buying the "leftists want the tiniest possible lot size" argument. As usual, people love to try to fit these types of debates into a neat little political box when its not an issue that fits in that box. California, which many folks here will insist is basically a socialist nation-within-a-nation got to the ridiculous housing prices it did within its urban areas precisely because of generations of single-family neighborhoods fighting upzoning and the lack of the ability to build because of those restrictions. NYC, on the other hand, is far less expensive (and prices have grown much more slowly over the past few decades) than the California metro areas because they kept adding housing at a good clip due to their willingness to upzone and keep adding density.
In my opinion, if you want to live somewhere that you can guarantee that you won't see much additional housing demand and your neighborhood will remain SFH, there's plenty of small towns, rural areas, and Midwestern cities that don't have much demand at all. Would be far more affordable than a massive, growing Texas metro too. Those who can buy in north Dallas today could pay the same price for a mansion with no neighbors in parts of Arkansas, for example.
I prefer our cities not become like California cities, with nothing but rich and poor people in the urbanized areas and everyone else banished to the hinterlands due to a lack of housing affordability. We see how well that's worked out for them and I fundamentally don't agree with the government (or neighborhood groups) limiting a landowner's ability to utilize their land to its highest and best use, unless there's a tangible health and safety aspect to it. I don't think that's a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint, it just reflects the reality of living in a city. We live in some of the most dynamic, fastest growing cities in the nation and I think economic diversity makes the healthiest cities long term - cities consisting of nothing but rich people and their servants is how you get places like San Francisco with deep social issues far beyond anything we see in urban Texas.
As far as people worried about demographic changes affecting their neighborhood, my response is "make more money and you can live where you want". In lower-income neighborhoods, the demographics change due to gentrification and everyone applauds that, but then the same people want higher-income neighborhoods to stay exactly the same. It's not realistic, and not fair to other neighborhoods. And besides that, urban sprawl isn't going to lessen because all of a sudden rich people will magically stay put in their neighborhoods instead of fleeing for the exurbs at the first sight of a used Toyota Corolla or a blacked out Charger. That exurban land will be developed regardless, because there are strong contingents of people of all income levels who like having space and a yard. Whether those people are rich, middle class, or poor will all depend on policies of the most populated places in a region (e.g. Dallas).
If you don't like living in growing cities (which may include - God forbid - a duplex going up in your neighborhood) don't live in a growing city.
Yeah, I'm not buying the "leftists want the tiniest possible lot size" argument. As usual, people love to try to fit these types of debates into a neat little political box when its not an issue that fits in that box. California, which many folks here will insist is basically a socialist nation-within-a-nation got to the ridiculous housing prices it did within its urban areas precisely because of generations of single-family neighborhoods fighting upzoning and the lack of the ability to build because of those restrictions. NYC, on the other hand, is far less expensive (and prices have grown much more slowly over the past few decades) than the California metro areas because they kept adding housing at a good clip due to their willingness to upzone and keep adding density.
In my opinion, if you want to live somewhere that you can guarantee that you won't see much additional housing demand and your neighborhood will remain SFH, there's plenty of small towns, rural areas, and Midwestern cities that don't have much demand at all. Would be far more affordable than a massive, growing Texas metro too. Those who can buy in north Dallas today could pay the same price for a mansion with no neighbors in parts of Arkansas, for example.
I prefer our cities not become like California cities, with nothing but rich and poor people in the urbanized areas and everyone else banished to the hinterlands due to a lack of housing affordability. We see how well that's worked out for them and I fundamentally don't agree with the government (or neighborhood groups) limiting a landowner's ability to utilize their land to its highest and best use, unless there's a tangible health and safety aspect to it. I don't think that's a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint, it just reflects the reality of living in a city. We live in some of the most dynamic, fastest growing cities in the nation and I think economic diversity makes the healthiest cities long term - cities consisting of nothing but rich people and their servants is how you get places like San Francisco with deep social issues far beyond anything we see in urban Texas.
As far as people worried about demographic changes affecting their neighborhood, my response is "make more money and you can live where you want". In lower-income neighborhoods, the demographics change due to gentrification and everyone applauds that, but then the same people want higher-income neighborhoods to stay exactly the same. It's not realistic, and not fair to other neighborhoods. And besides that, urban sprawl isn't going to lessen because all of a sudden rich people will magically stay put in their neighborhoods instead of fleeing for the exurbs at the first sight of a used Toyota Corolla or a blacked out Charger. That exurban land will be developed regardless, because there are strong contingents of people of all income levels who like having space and a yard. Whether those people are rich, middle class, or poor will all depend on policies of the most populated places in a region (e.g. Dallas).
If you don't like living in growing cities (which may include - God forbid - a duplex going up in your neighborhood) don't live in a growing city.
You - REALLY - need to research every claim in your first paragraph and report back.
Did you know that LA is the most dense Urban Area in The US? It is.
Manhattan RE prices are higher than SF proper prices.
I love living in a growing city. I simply do not want some REIT screwing up my neighborhood so you can feel enjoy level of economic revenge.
I'm two Ardbegs in so I'm just going to say it..........we can afford any city in the world. We have four homes now across the US including Manhattan now. Sun Valley, Franklin, Jackson Hole or Whitefish sound better and better every day.
Yeah, I'm not buying the "leftists want the tiniest possible lot size" argument.
What are you talking about?
The divergent poster framed California’s housing affordability crisis as a direct result of “California leftism“, that they claim “disrespects“ free market unimpeded high density development.
Myself and another poster countered this position, by maintaining that the most fervent pro-density advocacy is distinctly from Leftist institutions, politicians, academics, and people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
As usual, people love to try to fit these types of debates into a neat little political box when it’s not an issue that fits in that box. California, which many folks here will insist is basically a socialist nation-within-a-nation got to the ridiculous housing prices it did within its urban areas precisely because of generations of single-family neighborhoods fighting upzoning and the lack of the ability to build because of those restrictions. NYC, on the other hand, is far less expensive (and prices have grown much more slowly over the past few decades) than the California metro areas because they kept adding housing at a good clip due to their willingness to upzone and keep adding density.
This issue may not conform entirely to an ideological echo chamber, but opposition or support of density, especially as it relates to suburban or established wealthy neighborhoods, is strongly correlated with political alignment. Which is to say that as far as this issue is concerned, the vast majority of “free market”, limited government interventionists are Leftists. Whereas those who value single-family homogeneity in their neighborhoods, wish to maintain neighborhood character, and prefer a more active role of government when it comes to zoning, are usually on the political Right. This really isn’t debatable.
Your comparison between NYC and California is simplistic and lacks nuance. No, opposition at the neighborhood level to “upzoning” is not the primary reason why California broadly has the most expensive housing prices in the country. California’s high housing costs are mostly attributable to its nanny state-level regulatory policies around environmental protection, regressive taxation laws which benefit the wealthy and de-incentivize selling through capped property taxes (Prop 13), and the continued extremely high demand for housing in California, despite the severe social and economic problems plaguing it’s largest cities.
As for NYC, it is still extremely expensive in comparison to just about any other metropolitan area outside of Los Angeles or San Francisco. That said, NYC's “affordability“ in comparison to California cities is partially attributed to public housing and rent control, which do not exist in California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
In my opinion, if you want to live somewhere that you can guarantee that you won't see much additional housing demand and your neighborhood will remain SFH, there's plenty of small towns, rural areas, and Midwestern cities that don't have much demand at all. Would be far more affordable than a massive, growing Texas metro too. Those who can buy in north Dallas today could pay the same price for a mansion with no neighbors in parts of Arkansas, for example.
This argument is flawed.
There are plenty of high-demand metropolitan areas in the US, in which wealthy and/or established neighborhoods or communities have retained their character, free from unimpeded high-density development. Examples include Atherton and Burlingame near San Francisco, Alpine and Tenafly, on the New Jersey side of NYC, and Potomac and Bethesda on the Maryland side of DC. All of these suburbs maintain strict bans on high density housing, have not seen drastic changes in their demographic profiles or character over the years, and yet, they are part of high-growth, high-housing demand MSA’s.
This reoccurring pattern of decaying, disposable suburbs — a direct byproduct of uncontrolled, unregulated zoning and let’s be honest, white flight — is really a unique-to-Texas phenomenon. I just haven’t seen it in other states on anywhere near the large scale and predictable basis like I do here. Case in point, my hometown of Chicago.
In Chicago, the wealthiest, most pedigreed suburbs are Wilmette (my hometown), Kenilworth, Winnetka, and Glencoe. Like the Park Cities or River Oaks in Houston, these communities have remained exclusive and wealthy for a very long time, with very little socioeconomic (or racial demographic) changes throughout their long and esteemed existences.
The upper middle class suburban Chicago communities — mostly due north and due west of the city — for the most part, have retained a level of demographic and economic stability over the years that is not common among Dallas or Houston neighborhoods that start out upper middle class. This is precisely because these communities have restricted undisciplined high-density development, instead employing strict zoning requirements. Examples include Lincolnshire, Highland Park (IL), and Downers Grove, a western suburb. The same can’t be said of analogously affluent Dallas or Houston communities. See Plano, Frisco, and the Woodlands in Houston, which are experiencing surging populations of low income/Section 8 families and all the corresponding challenges they bring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
I prefer our cities not become like California cities, with nothing but rich and poor people in the urbanized areas and everyone else banished to the hinterlands due to a lack of housing affordability. We see how well that's worked out for them and I fundamentally don't agree with the government (or neighborhood groups) limiting a landowner's ability to utilize their land to its highest and best use, unless there's a tangible health and safety aspect to it. I don't think that's a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint, it just reflects the reality of living in a city. We live in some of the most dynamic, fastest growing cities in the nation and I think economic diversity makes the healthiest cities long term - cities consisting of nothing but rich people and their servants is how you get places like San Francisco with deep social issues far beyond anything we see in urban Texas.
I can’t figure out why you continue to compare California and Texas, two places which couldn’t be more dissimilar as far as real estate development is concerned:
1. Texas has vast amounts of land to build on and California doesn’t.
2. Texas land is much cheaper than California land.
3. Texas is generally far more pro-developer with less restrictions than California.
4. Texas has drastically fewer environmental regulations than California.
California is not Texas and Texas is not California. To argue that Texas residents who oppose giving developers unrestricted, character-destroying access to their communities are facilitating a California-like environment where the poor are “banished to the hinterlands” is ridiculous. Just because Texas is largely pro-developer doesn’t mean every single neighborhood needs to adhere to this way of thinking. As I previously argued, some suburbs should retain — and have a right to retain — their character, exclusivity, affluence, high quality schools, and demographics. And residents of these areas should have a say in what is being built in their neighborhoods.
There is more than enough land here for developers to go on a multi-family building binge to satisfy all the pent up housing demand in Texas. Let them build those monstrosities in some other suburb, or better yet, designate certain areas as expressly for or predominately for multi-family housing.
And I’ve already disproven your assertion that this isn’t a political issue, when it most certainly is. For a group of people who claim to value “diversity”, it’s always ironic how quick Leftists are to shut down “diversity of thought”, i.e., any viewpoint which runs counter to, dares to question, or rejects their Pharisaical narratives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
As far as people worried about demographic changes affecting their neighborhood, my response is "make more money and you can live where you want". In lower-income neighborhoods, the demographics change due to gentrification and everyone applauds that, but then the same people want higher-income neighborhoods to stay exactly the same. It's not realistic, and not fair to other neighborhoods.
This is a ridiculous argument. My parents are multi-millionaires who could afford to live anywhere they wanted in DFW. That didn’t stop their community (West Plano) from the unwelcome demographic changes and decline that is an inevitable derivative of unrestricted zoning.
And furthermore, your argument vis-a-vis “gentrification” versus “ghettoification” of a neighborhood ignores the fact that the latter results in a host of negative outcomes for said community as it correlates strongly with declines in median household income, school performance, and overall neighborhood desirability. Not to mention slower appreciating or even declining property values. This isn’t the case with gentrification. Gentrification actually results in positive outcomes among all the variables I cited above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
And besides that, urban sprawl isn't going to lessen because all of a sudden rich people will magically stay put in their neighborhoods instead of fleeing for the exurbs at the first sight of a used Toyota Corolla or a blacked out Charger. That exurban land will be developed regardless, because there are strong contingents of people of all income levels who like having space and a yard. Whether those people are rich, middle class, or poor will all depend on policies of the most populated places in a region (e.g. Dallas).
If you don't like living in growing cities (which may include - God forbid - a duplex going up in your neighborhood) don't live in a growing city
Your thesis suggesting that it’s impossible or unrealistic for established or wealthy cities to resist unmitigated development if they are part of high-growth, high-demand MSA’s is false and disproven by the numerous suburbs I cited above.
What we are talking about is a Texas specific issue that is rarely seen in other states and cities. As I stated in a previous post, I am extremely pessimistic about the near-term and long-term future of Texas (and the country) due to the sheer number of third world illegal aliens who have already breached our open border and continue to flood into our great state unconstrained. Unless there are mass deportations, I see this trend of declining suburbs/neighborhoods worsening to the point where the only nice neighborhoods with good public schools in DFW will be Highland Park, Westlake, and Southlake. Unironically, the only DFW suburbs with strict bans on high density housing. Preston Hollow would maintain its pedigree by way of the elite private schools that serve it.
Texas was already trending poorer as a whole, as the Hispanic population was set to eclipse the white population (and it finally did last year). These changing demographics and trend lines were well underway before the southern floodgates opened. But make no mistake, these changes have consequences: as economically disadvantaged (lower IQ) students make up larger and larger percentages of public school enrollment — as they already are and will continue to in suburbs with few zoning controls — school performance indices will worsen. When Plano and Frisco lose their reputation as high quality school districts, which is exactly where they’re trending (Plano on a faster trajectory than Frisco), what exactly will make these cities desirable or appealing? Sure, they’ll be close to all the corporate jobs in the area, but the primary factor that fueled their growth and success (their top rated schools), will exist no more.
mod cut
Last edited by Acntx; 02-09-2024 at 12:02 PM..
Reason: Off-topic
It’s funny how people claim that additional density is “leftist” when the Texas GOP tried to pass a law reducing the lot sizes across Texas. Guess who stopped it….? Democrats. I’m not even a leftist, completely far from it, but if y’all expect Dallas to be the same forever and only concerned about “traffic and noise”….why do y’all live in the 9th largest city in America? If you’re expecting a suburban-style atmosphere to be preserved forever, move to the suburbs or exurbs. Doing nothing will just accelerate gentrification in Dallas neighborhoods. There’s literally a shortage of housing at EVERY income level. That’s what baffles me about NIMBYs. No city can be sustained if all the housing the working class can’t afford.
A year or two ago, I was watching a city council meeting about rezoning a property (not zoned single family) in Preston Hollow to allow for denser single family homes. Guess what, nobody who came to City Hall was in favor of it. These weren’t affordable housing. It was multi-million dollar homes that’s comparable to the homes already in the area. People were literally claiming their property values would go down. Just making stuff up to stifle any type of change. The council was rightfully perplexed at the way people was just making stuff up. They all voted in favor of it. Also, all of them who was against it was a boomer or older.
Last edited by Dallaz; 02-06-2024 at 09:10 AM..
Reason: Typo
I received my masters degree in city planning in California (I'm a Houston native). "Protecting" single family neighborhoods grew out of the leftist "progressive" movements in the 1960s-70s in California, basically opposing free market principles of land use which would naturally lead to changes in residential density. "Developers (and capitalists) are evil!" "No Manhattanization!"
All of you who say that "established" single family neighborhoods, especially those occupied by the more affluent members of society, should have the benefit of special laws preventing land use change within or adjacent to your neighborhoods - or in your school attendance zone - fit in way more with that California mentality than Texas. If this is your attitude, you really belong in California. Or, someplace else that doesn't believe in the free market. And no, the burden of promulgating residents' preferences regarding what other folks do with their property does not belong with the government. How absurd and basically un-American, certainly un-Texan.
If that makes you wince, then you should maybe consider the fact that the lack of residential density regulations (apart from the 1,400 lot size minimum) is something Houston got absolutely right.
I think it is you that needs to research your claims, frankly. Yes, I've long known LA is the most dense urban area in the US. I also don't see your point. It should be denser. On an urban level, its density is primarily due to the density of its suburbs (compared to somewhere like NYC or Chicago), which are also the densest in the country. And given the demand to be there, it would be denser were it not for NIMBYism. The market, had it been allowed to work, would have resulted in lower prices over the long term (much like NYC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
NYC RE prices are higher than LA prices.
Manhattan RE prices are higher than SF proper prices.
So in your first example you talk about NYC vs. LA (no mention of city or metro), but that's easily disproven on both levels.
Then, in the second example, you talk about Manhattan vs. SF proper.
You're moving the goalposts. What are we really talking about here. Here are the numbers.
median sold price:
LA (city) - $850K (2023)
NYC (city) - $700K (2023)
Furthermore, up until around the time Prop 13 passed in 1978, NYC was generally more expensive than California metros. Its price trajectory decreased over time because even though they certainly didn't totally adhere to free market principles there either when it comes to housing policy, they did a much better job of not backing down to the NIMBYs and making the city even more unaffordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
I love living in a growing city. I simply do not want some REIT screwing up my neighborhood so you can feel enjoy level of economic revenge.
I'm two Ardbegs in so I'm just going to say it..........we can afford any city in the world. We have four homes now across the US including Manhattan now. Sun Valley, Franklin, Jackson Hole or Whitefish sound better and better every day.
Well, I can't afford any city in the world, but I do pretty well. I don't need to enact any revenge and I'm not planning on building a duplex in your neighborhood, so you can relax. I have my own house and am planning on buying another this year - also not in your neighborhood.
But I do see this foolish NIMBYism even in my own neighborhood and I push back against it because we've already seen how this policy ends. It benefits the rich (you) and to a lesser extent the poor and pushes out the middle class which is the lifeblood of cities. It disadvantages some landowners vs. others. And over the long term it creates terrible social problems that take generations to fix.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
