This Place Is…

51 Comments Add your own

• 1. Charlie Quidnunc  |  September 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

  If what you say is correct, then clearly some enterprising businessman will put up a shopping mall with no parking. Then, with the money he saves by not paying for extra real estate, he can charge lower prices. Then, all the customers that formerly bought at the WalMarts and the shopping malls will flock to the new lower priced outlets.

  What’s keeping you from opening such a mall and making a huge amount of money on the idea? Why doesn’t one exist today? Is it perhaps because there is some value in being able to easily and quickly find a place to park while shopping? Is that value worth something to the customers? It must be, because there are so few shopping malls that lack free parking.

• 2. Greg Pare  |  September 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pm

  What a load. Be sure to catch my lecture on the high cost of “free” air, and how Donald Shoup is using too much of it.

• 3. Marc Arsenault  |  September 6th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

  Well clearly any space taken up by people for free at all is the problem. The hidden cost of sidewalks could alone fill a month-long lecture series. These type of ‘beyond-Freakonomics’ insights could only have been dreamed up after a few late nights licking the ground at the back of the stage in People’s Park with an peacock feather stuck in your behind.

• 4. Nick  |  September 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pm

  While I agree with your “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” theory on parking. You are failing to realize the positive externalities associated with free parking society experiences. The price of the land associated wit the free parking is a 1 time fee which the developer does pass on to the business who then incorporates it into their pricing, this is true. However, I would say that the cost of paid parking can be perceived as a costly expense and could therefore could lead to consumers and workers forgoing a trip to that area, thereby reducing commerce in the area. As such I would say free parking should be viewed as a necessary evil which can lead to positives for the economy as a whole.

• 5. Rob Stevens  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm

  What this “seminar” fails to take into account are the working poor, and how this would effect them if parking were not free. Someone making minimum wage or even slightly above would be paralyzed by the cost of paid parking.

• 6. Henry Phish  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm

  Not to mention that in most cases the individuals with the cars have more money and therefore can spend more. You need to cater to your main source of income.

• 7. Charlie  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

  Iin the county where I live, over 40% of the land area is covered with surfaces impenetrable to rain. A large part of this area is “blacktop” or tar macadam. This surface collects motor oil and other pollution sources from beneath cars and rather efficiently funnels it into the local watershed, where it then proceeds to tax-funded municipal water treatment plants, which use public dollars to clean the water enough to be drinkable. This water treatment cost burden is shared by all taxpayers in the municipality regardless of the amount of pollution they have created.

• 8. The High Cost of Free Par&hellip  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pm

  […] And you think free parking is expensive? Try every stupid social program in existance. […]

• 9. Meadowlark Bradsher  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

  The only problem I can see is how people who don’t drive pay in other ways, otherwise if you pay one way or the other, I expect you are still going to pay. As a principle I thought, unscientifically but logically none-the-less, that anybody who lives outside of the majority practices of society either benefit or handicap from that position. Therefore a bicycle or public transportation user will pay for the free parking of drivers, and will benefit from the lack of other automobile costs and concerns, though perhaps not in perfect equality.

  If the main concern of this author is for programs that reduce automobile usage then this may be a useful program. However equally inciteful studies will be needed to see what the economic impact would be on commerce in general. I am generally concerned about the cost of transportation, housing and education and what it says about the strength of the middle class economy. On top of remarkable gas prices I see this as even more strain. However I’m not sure that the inflation in the markets I mentioned is as economic so much as they are creative destruction of impractical magnitudes.

• 10. Torsten Kathke  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:24 pm

  And what you fail to take into account is that many of the working poor cannot afford a car, have to pay for dismal public transportation that they depend on, and still pay for the parking that is free for the rest of us.

  Admittedly, on the list of pressing problems in the world free parking is not the number one priority, but this at least deserves to be considered. At the very least, it’s yet another reminder that in this (yet imperfectly) globalized economy, everything is connected somehow. When we think about what we are responsible for, through our actions or inaction, we might just not sleep well anymore.

• 11. Steve Mallett  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  I think this underscores not free parking, but the absurdity of social programs everywhere that have to tie to helping people produce for themselves.

  If you think free parking has any kind of actual cost imagine stupid social programs and pork barrel politics.

• 12. Steve Mallett  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  That should be “no tie”.

• 13. Ryan S  |  September 6th, 2006 at 2:57 pm

  This is actually one of those “If I don’t have children then why do my taxes pay for schools?” cases. Even people who do not own a car depend on automobiles as heavily as those who do. They reap the same benefits of having goods transported as well as the services of taxis, firetrucks, ambulances, police cars, etc etc.

• 14. Driver  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:19 pm

  What would the actual “cost” be to the individual? What is the actual value? How do you calculate this? I imagine it would be pennies per person per hour.

  Someone should revoke SHoup’s license. He clearly has no common sense and is probably a menace on the road. I’m sure he takes the bus anyway.

• 15. sunbin  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

  what you failed to take into account is the cost and inefficiency in charging the parking space.

  the world must have decided that in many locations that the cost exceeds the price it can charge, in areas where price > cost the parking lots are not free.

  QED

• 16. Jeff W  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:22 pm

  Regarding the first comment, in most cities, zoning would require the retailer to provide a certain amount of parking.

• 17. HARM  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

  what you failed to take into account is the cost and inefficiency in charging the parking space.

  Exactly. Has anyone spent time hunting for a parking space in a crowded lot, only to find that you lack the proper coinage for the meter? Loads of fun that. Not to mention you have to pay someone to go around and empty/collect from the meters, which is far more wasteful/inefficient than simply hiking the price of goods a few pennies. Same argument could also be made in favor of freeways vs. toll roads.

• 18. Margrethe Anderssen  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  Social programs? All this *reasonably, I guess* intelligent discussion about the distribution of costs regarding an article that points out that non-vehicularly-enabled citizens are paying so that people can have the luxury of gliding their car (which is a luxury) into a luxurious parking spot, and arrive, after a modest constitutional at their destination of choice whereas the working poor (who generally live nowhere near their jobs) take public transport so that tubby yuppies can go shop at Pottery Barn free of parking charges and the best comment you can come up with is to complain of the aid the goverment provides to those same economically disadvantaged individuals? Seriously?

• 19. Sean Lynch  |  September 6th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

  Fortunately there’s plenty of competition among cities for productive residents, so people can feel free to live in a city that doesn’t have free parking if they want. Personally, I’m happy to have people like that living as far from me as possible.

  My only experience with parking requirements was the fact that 3Com in Santa Clara was only allowed to provide parking to 80% of its employees to encourage carpooling and use of mass transit. 3Com was also required to pay for its employees to use mass transit whether they did or not. So I basically got penalized for driving my car to work every day. I was forced to subsidize not only the employees who chose to take mass transit, but my payment of gas and vehicle taxes subsidized both the roads that the buses use and the buses themselves. Talk about unfair!

• 20. perianwyr  |  September 6th, 2006 at 4:05 pm

  The more people describe fairness, the less I like it.

• 21. Jeremy Sapienza  |  September 6th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

  While this is a poorly-written and -elaborated post, what I take from it is this: parking requirements are costly, and divert resources from areas to which they would otherwise be allocated. It’s not a matter of free or not free; it’s a matter of artificial oversupply. Without parking mandates (i.e., in most cities in the US, one cannot open a business or build a building that doesn’t have a certain amount of parking per sq ft), there would likely be a lot less parking for all building types. This would lessen the need for roads, other parking lots, would lead to an increase in mass transit options (both public and private), and reduce transportation costs, among other things.

  This could have nothing to do with what the author meant, but who can even tell? He doesn’t even make a thesis statement.

• 22. Chad  |  September 6th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

  The larger cost of free parking is suburban sprawl. I’m a real estate developer and when we build an office building, as a for instance, we’re required to provide parking vastly in excess of a worst-case-scenereo of the number of cars parked at any given time. It means that for a relatively small building, we have to buy and clear and pave a surprisingly large piece of land.

  The result of which is that everything is built far apart, with sweeping seas of parking lots inbetween. With everything far apart, people are discouraged from walking or riding a bicycle. The demand for parking goes up. The intimacy of a neighborhood disappears. Cities become decentralized. No commercial center where people work and congregate. No nexus of art and culture and commerce. No neighborhood ice cream shop, pizza place, hardware store. Less room for trees and parks…

  with people working and living more spread out, the need arises for redundancy; a pizza hut and a blockbuster video and a walgreens every 7 blocks in an identical strip center.

  It stems from bad city planning, and for a desire on behalf of the voters, who the politicans take their cues from, for convenience over community

• 23. HARM  |  September 6th, 2006 at 4:20 pm

  And what you fail to take into account is that many of the working poor cannot afford a car, have to pay for dismal public transportation that they depend on, and still pay for the parking that is free for the rest of us.

  The “dismal public transportation” that you claim the working poor “so depends on” is one of the most highly subsidized forms of transport on the planet. I’ve seen studies that show fees generated from ridership pay only a small fraction of the cost to build/maintain subways & commuter rail systems in most U.S. cities.

  Here’s a great site for stats and in-depth discussion of this subject:http://exurbannation.blogspot.com/

• 24. Happy Car Driver  |  September 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pm

  This just made me laugh, as did some of the comments. All this talk of how non-drivers pay also for free parking is absurd. All drivers subsidize public transportation every time they gas up. If you socialist bus CHOOSERS had to pay what it really cost to ride, you’d be in a car in a heartbeat.

  “Seminars” like this could ONLY happen in Berkeley, the communist capital of the US.

• 25. Jeremy Sapienza  |  September 6th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

  Chad wrote: “It stems from bad city planning, and for a desire on behalf of the voters, who the politicans take their cues from, for convenience over community”

  No, it stems from city planning, period. Cities never needed planning before, they don’t need them now. Parking requirements are the spawn of city planners. Cities like New York (with the exception of the city’s current grid street system), London, and Paris are the results of spontaneous and organic growth in response to market demands. Suburban sprawl itself is due to the federal government and its mortgage guarantees for single family homes, and nothing else, and its construction of the interstate system.

  Central planning put us in this ugly mess; deregulation will take us out.

  Happy Car Driver, you’re right about bus riders — but what about walkers like me? I pay for ALL OF YOU.

• 26. Larry Campbell  |  September 6th, 2006 at 5:41 pm

  Here in Boston (in the city, not the burbs) the shopping malls (Landmark Center, CambridgeSide Galleria) charge for parking. This is a good thing; drivers pay for the parking and socially responsible people who bicycle or walk or take the subway don’t.

• 27. Larry Campbell  |  September 6th, 2006 at 5:45 pm

  And yes, the implication is that if you can walk or bicycle or take the subway and instead choose to drive, you’re a socially irresponsible planet-heating mideast-war-inciting yob.

• 28. AMA  |  September 6th, 2006 at 5:47 pm

  “Cities never needed planning before, they don’t need them now.”

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Haussmann

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren

• 29. David Culberson  |  September 6th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

  Well, obviously this guy’s on to something, looking at all the resistance people are putting up to even discussing it..

  -David

• 30. Mike Vance  |  September 6th, 2006 at 7:13 pm

  As far as I am concerned, adequate parking is a requirement of existing as an organization. You provide for your employees/customers/victims (this last is for governmental issues). Paid parking is an error condition, indicating that someone, usually several someones, is lacking in competence.

  For the most part, paid parking areas are a no-go zone for me. I either have to have some pressing need to be where paying for parking is required or I have been tricked somehow. I am stuck with paying for parking to get to my job, as my employer dropped that ball rather badly, this counts against them. As it is, Dearborn Michigan was putting in parking meters and lot gates last year in one of the business districts. I haven’t been back since.

  The cost of paid parking = no chance of my business.

• 31. Mike  |  September 6th, 2006 at 9:45 pm

  I live in Worcester MA, where not to long ago The Common Fashion Outlets was closed… The mall relied on an adjacent parking structure that collected fees from mallgoers while the mall’s chief competitors, The Greendale and Auburn malls flourished despite being farther away from the city. Both The Greendale Auburn Malls had free parking readily accessible at the front. This shows that the individual consumer is willing to pay a very minute price for the ability to quickly park without the added burden of digging for meter change. My only question is why was this article Boinged?

• 32. UCB'92.5  |  September 6th, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  Let us also be sure we charge for “Free Jazz Concerts” and “Free Health Clinics” since those obviously create unabsorbed externalities in the economy as well. Each put a stress on the economies of Jazz and Medicine, each puts a higher cost on those who provide their services for a fee.

  If I can find a way to tax “Free Love”, I’d suggest we do that as well.

• 33. Jesse  |  September 7th, 2006 at 1:46 am

  Let me preface this all by saying that I spent fifteen minutes today looking for parking in San Francisco’s Chinatown, and paid well over a dollar for thirty minutes once I landed. I think that was completely fair, although in hindsight I’d have been smart to take the train!

  Anyway. If there are similar places to shop, and one starts charging for parking, all things being equal, consumers will shun the one that charges. According to many, the cost and inconvenience of parking downtown (including limited availability and the risk of a ticket) has led to the rise of the suburban shopping center at the expense of city merchants.

  But what if both downtown and the mall started charging to park? And what if there’s a good bus or train to get people from their homes to downtown? Then shopping downtown becomes a whole lot more appealing, at least for many.

  As with everything, the debate becomes a matter of priorities. Those who love their cars will of course be loath to be pay any more for the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to, and regard sprawl as an acceptable consequence or even desirable result of their space-loving ways. However, people who value European-style density or the environment would love to see the footprint of big-boxes shrink and transportation to become both more appealing and more practical.

  Finally, I don’t think everyone’s bought into the idea that the lower cost of providing parking would get passed on to all consumers. However, there’s evidence of similar changes. Ryanair recently reduced all its fares by a few euros, but at the same time started charging passengers a few euros per checked bag. Similarly, if the average trip to Target were lowered by $1 because of reduced parking costs, and the cost to park were $1, drivers end up paying the same price in the end.

• 34. SMARTGUY  |  September 7th, 2006 at 5:34 am

  IM GONNA MAKE A SHOPPING MALL WITH NO PARTKING AND PEOPLE WILL COME THERE AND BUY LOTSA stUFFF@!@@@ THEY CAN RIDE BIKES!!!! TO MY MALL. I PUT A NEW TIRE ON MY BIKE NOW MY BAIKE IS FAAAAAAAAST!!!

• 35. humanoid  |  September 7th, 2006 at 5:36 am

  I’ve never seen a city force a developer to delete sidewalks and motorbike paths from their building plans. But boxy, crowded developments with structures built right up to the legal setback line are now the norm. Even communities with $400k and $500k single family houses are built this way.

  Folks are paying a fortune for dwellings that are laid out very much like Soviet apartment blocks. But even Soviet apartments had a few stores within walking distance- these new communities don’t.

• 36. Mary  |  September 7th, 2006 at 7:10 am

  Geez, most of you have totally missed the point. I’m pretty sure Shoup isn’t proposing eliminating parking or forcing everyone to pay for every parking space — although that happens naturally due to the laws of supply and demand iin many downtowns and people manage to survive quite nicely.

  Shoup’s point is that there’s no free lunch (or free land) and the cost of providing parking is embedded in the prices people pay and the rents and leases businesses pay. So don’t think it’s “free” cause it isn’t. Further, in many cases local government regulations require more parking spaces than are needed to offer adequate parking for all the reasons people have enumerated. So, he says, drop the parking requirements — which add unnecessarily to the cost of development, thus raisingthe embedded parking costs — and let the marketplace decide what’s needed.

• 37. sue r  |  September 7th, 2006 at 7:51 am

  Most zoning regulations base their parking requirements on a ULI (Urban Land Institute) recommendation and study. The study used the parking requirements for the biggest shopping day of the year, right before Christmas, to determine how many parking spaces were required. Generally, most of the required spaces sit unused most of the year. It’s quite likely many ordinances require too many parking spaces.

  Most zoning codes allow for variances to reduce the amount of parking spaces required, but many municipal boards are scared to grant such variances. The real estate developer agrees to provide all the required spaces just to get his project approved, even if he’s sure that much parking space won’t be necessary.

  Parking lots are not usually especially attractive. It might be a better use of the land if less were parking lots and more was available to be developed, used as parks or whatever other use made good sense.

• 38. Tom D  |  September 7th, 2006 at 9:01 am

  I worked on a study a few years ago looking at bank’s requirements for parking when financing suburban office development. Typically, these banks were looking for a certain ratio of parking spaces to square feet of office space. Of course, no one was really sure where that ratio came from, they just checked that it was met when financing the construction. It turns out that a significant part of that required lot space was never used. Among the many side effects of this oversupply of parking was that these office developments were quite spread out and thus hard to serve with public transportation (busses). This, of course, meant that everyone from the bigwigs to the cube grunts to the cleaning staff has to drive to get to work, making traffic and polution worse, and requiring, guess what - more parking.

• 39. Voireasion  |  September 7th, 2006 at 9:13 am

  Where ever there is a way (read acceptable excuse) we are charged for parking. Only it is not pennies per hour.

  In every downtown area of a large city I have been to I had to pay for parking. In my locality it ranges from $7 to $12 for a day or about $3 per hour for hourly rates.

  What can we learn from this and from every situation where some greedy person has discovered an excuse to transfer cost to the public? Simple: First someone must sell us on the idea that a cost of business is totally exaggerated and that we would be better off if we the consumers were to pay the expense directly. (Sounds like what I am reading here.)

  Next thing you know you are paying yet another fee and low and behold the prices of the goods do not go down even though the business has just reduced it’s overhead.

  Then come price increases to the new fee structure and increased profits for the greedy businessmen. It is genius, The business just converted a liability to an asset and the public now pays more.

  As an example: remember the telco fee the government recently dropped? Did the telcos ever stop charging us for it? No. Of course they didn’t. They took the opportunity to increase there bottom line by converting that fee to one that now fills there greedy pockets rather than the public coffers.

  This is a simple fact of life at this point; Any time anyone devises a way to pull money from your pocket you loose and corporate profits increase.

• 40. Joe W.  |  September 7th, 2006 at 9:22 am

  There’s an interesting correlation in these comments: Everybody hates the idea of pay parking — unless they’ve actually studied the subject.

  In Los Angeles, many new shopping districts, like Old Pasadena or the Beverly Center, have pay parking. These places are immensely popular, in part because they end up being pleasant to be in, without acres of blacktop as far as the eye can see.

• 41. Em Tee  |  September 7th, 2006 at 9:24 am

  How about the 13% shut up about free parking, and us 87% will continue to subsidize their public transportation?

  It’s easy to see Dr. Shoup’s motive - who gets the money from parking meters? The government, of course. What bugs the socialists in Berkeley is not that everyone pays for something that only 87% of the people use, but that the money goes to the first to private industry instead of the government’s coffers.

  The socialists need as much money as possible so they can provide “free” stuff to the people who don’t support themselves.

• 42. Tee Em  |  September 7th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

  Em Tee,
  The talk is taking place at UC Berkeley. The researcher is from UC Los Angeles. Sponsoring an academic talk (regardless of it’s merit) does not equate with support of the theory.

• 43. Mario WhoCaresAbout  |  September 7th, 2006 at 6:39 pm

  The whole premise is wrong as drivers do pay for parking, except that they don’t necessarily pay exactly at the time they use it

  As for the people that don’t drive at all, they shouldn’t be paying at all for parking, yet if they seldom or occasionally use parking they are better off paying a little constantly, a risible amount, then paying the full price of what they have NOT paid before in just a few moments.

  Beware of the sirens of privatization, most of the times it doesn’t benefit the consumer ; the biggest benefit come from technology invention and practical innovation , the rest is often marketing and cost shifting.

• 44. BJ  |  September 8th, 2006 at 6:27 am

  The university where I work has made this very apparent - you pay to park on campus, and the fees for parking pay for the totally free buses that anyone can ride all around campus (and even to a neighboring university). If you don’t want to pay to park, ride the bus.

  It could work better - the surrounding city’s bus infrastructure is terrible, and moderately dangerous, and doesn’t serve even slightly suburban areas, whereas if it did, a lot fewer people would drive (I hope).

• 45. Scotto  |  September 8th, 2006 at 9:48 am

  Wow, I’m honestly surprised at how many of these quotes are rabidly against the theme of this talk, especially since so many of them back up their venom with nothing. Of course this isn’t the biggest issue facing us today, but it’s basically a correct analysis. Nothing is actually free. Seemingly free parking is paid for by someone — and “someone” in this case is everybody. Now call me a idealist, loony, pie-in-the-sky capitalist if you will, but I generally prefer systems where the people getting the benefit pay the cost.

  However, it’s true that Americans would flee from paid parking, and vendors who lower their prices but charge for parking would lose business. People want their costs to be hidden. Wallowing in ignorance is good for business. If we had to understand the money we were spending on things we would probably riot. And it’s not like people who can’t afford cars — the ones who help pay for our parking but get nothing — are going to do anything about it. If they had any power they would buy cars.

• 46. saurabh  |  September 8th, 2006 at 11:19 am

  I don’t think people are being that rabid or unreasoned in their responses - the argument is pretty clear: yes, the cost of parking is socialized, but so are many other costs, and arguing that one shouldn’t have to pay for parking because one doesn’t like it is exactly analagous to saying you don’t want art to be subsidized by government grants, you don’t want socialized health care, etc. If you think parking lots are an ill, argue against them directly - don’t argue against socializing their costs. That’s not something that we as a society believe to be wrong.

• 47. Spark Parking FounderR&hellip  |  September 8th, 2006 at 4:26 pm

  […] Sorry for the short notice (and the lack of blogging) but I thought you might like to know that my parking guru Donald Shoup is presenting a 1-hour lecture on The High Cost of Free Parking this Friday, Sept 8 at 4pm on the UC Berkeley campus. This would be a great way to absorb the key points of his excellent book without all that pesky reading time! […]

• 48. BDM  |  October 7th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

  I’m not sure how many of you have actually read the book.

  You can argue forever about whether or not everyone should subsidize the transportation choices of others or not. We agree it happens, but whether it is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

  There are some facts which Shoup proves:
  1) Available parking, not “free” parking, improves the climate for businesses where parking is limited.
  2) Parking requirements lead to urban sprawl, and higher costs for housing and other prices we pay as consumers.
  3) By hiding the costs of parking, drivers ignore this cost and make more car trips more often than if they paid directly for parking costs.

  Leading us back to opinions: Does air quality, dependence on oil, alternative transportation or sustainabilty matter to you?

• 49. Mike Linksvayer » P&hellip  |  November 12th, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  […] September 8 I heard about a Donald Shoup lecture at UC Berkeley via Boing Boing. I’ve previously mentioned Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking. […]

• 50. M. Hourigan  |  December 5th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  Okay, apparently some people haven’t even read the book. First, Shoup is a Professor at UCLA who gave a lecture at Berkeley. Second, I am researching for a City Planning paper for downtown Berkeley. For anyone who hasn’t been to the Bay Area or any other dense metropolitan area, paid parking and limiting the parking spaces is a planning tool to lower congestion and automobile accidents, while increasing alternative modes of transportation, which decreases pollution from gas emissions. Furthermore, parking spaces are NOT a one time cost. Parking enforcement and maintenance are extremely expensive. There are also statistics showing that people who don’t get to where they need to go driving tend to care more about there community. Lastly, don’t knock public transit. It gives people who can’t afford to drive, aren’t old enough to drive, and people who just don’t want the hassle of driving (especially in really dense congested areas, such as the Bay Area and Manhatten) means to get around.

• 51. adaptive path » blo&hellip  |  February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 am

  […] It feels better to get “free parking!“ at your apartment or local grocery store than to pay for parking, even if it might mean lower everyday prices. […]

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed