https://www.facebook.com/585969137927007/

Cali Zingale North Ridgeville Council At Large, North Ridgeville, OH (2026)

09/19/2026

RESOLUTION 2026-75 REFERENDUM: WHY THE TIMELINE MATTERS

There has been a lot of discussion about Resolution 2026-75, the referendum petition, and North Ridgeville's participation in Lorain County's Urban County CDBG program. I want to put the most important dates in one place, because what happened between September 1 and September 17 matters.

SEPTEMBER 1

The referendum petition challenging Resolution 2026-75 was filed with Council President Holly Swenk.

SEPTEMBER 2

One day later, Mayor Kevin Corcoran executed and submitted North Ridgeville's Cooperation Agreement to Lorain County.

Council was not informed that this had occurred.

SEPTEMBER 4

I submitted a public records request to Lorain County seeking records regarding North Ridgeville's participation.

SEPTEMBER 10

The County responded to my request. That is when I learned that the agreement had already been executed and submitted on September 2.

That same day, I contacted HUD directly to determine North Ridgeville's status in the federal approval process. I also verbally requested that our Law Department address my questions surrounding the referendum and Cooperation Agreement.

HUD's response was significant.

When I asked whether North Ridgeville was currently considered a participating UGLG, HUD answered:

"No, not yet."

HUD explained that the County's application and Cooperation Agreements were still under review and that final approval had not occurred.

HUD also explained that before final approval, North Ridgeville could repeal the resolution supporting the agreement, withdraw for FY2027, and potentially choose to participate beginning in FY2028.

HUD told me the process was expected to be completed "by the end of September."

So as of September 10, final approval had not occurred and HUD had described an avenue to withdraw before it did.

SEPTEMBER 15

Having received no answers to the questions I raised with our Law Department on September 10, I submitted a written request for a legal opinion, along with several additional questions directly to our Law Director.

Also on September 15, the Clerk's office transmitted the referendum petitions to the Lorain County Board of Elections for signature certification. The BOE receipt documents 131 pages of part-petitions.

And also on September 15, HUD issued final approval. (This was not yes communicated)

SEPTEMBER 16

HUD confirmed that approval had occurred the previous day and advised that the County and participating communities with binding Cooperation Agreements were now locked into the upcoming three-year cycle.

Our Law Director also responded to my written request that day, advising that he needed additional time to research the issues I had raised. Seems like that research should have been completed prior to signing.

SEPTEMBER 17

We received the Law Director's legal opinion. After the fact.

WHY DOES THIS TIMELINE MATTER?

Because North Ridgeville's position changed while all of this was happening.

On September 10, HUD told me final approval had not occurred, explained an avenue for withdrawal before approval, and said the process was expected to be completed "by the end of September."

Just five days later, on September 15, HUD would issue final approval.

After that approval, HUD's answer changed: participating communities with binding Cooperation Agreements were now locked into the upcoming three-year cycle.

And that has practical consequences.

North Ridgeville can choose not to accept Urban County funding or participate in community-development activities. But that does not return us to the position we were in before participation.

As HUD explained to me, Urban County status means North Ridgeville is excluded from receiving CDBG funding through the State Community Development program during the qualification period. Instead, eligible CDBG activities would be pursued through the Urban County structure.

So yes, the City can choose not to take the money. But we cannot simply decline it and then pursue State CDBG funding instead.

That is why I think residents should see the entire sequence together.

September 1: Referendum filed.
September 2: Agreement executed and submitted.
September 4: Records requested from Lorain County.
September 10: County records confirm the September 2 submission; HUD says "No, not yet" approved; questions raised with our Law Department.
September 15: Written legal opinion requested; petitions transmitted to BOE for certification; HUD final approval issued.
September 16: HUD confirms approval and the resulting change in status; Law Director advises additional research is needed.
September 17: Legal review received.

Whatever your opinion of the Urban County program itself, those dates matter.

City Council and the residents we represent deserve respect, transparency, and communication. It really is that simple.

09/16/2026

I owe everyone an update because I didn't make my usual post after last week's Council meeting.

I've spent the last two weeks trying to get answers about the Urban County Designation and referendum.

Today, I got one I really hate to share, but it needs to be put out there.

Andy Coleman from HUD informed me this morning that final approval occurred late yesterday. North Ridgeville is now locked into the Urban County program for FY2027–2029.

Meanwhile, the referendum signed by more than 1,000 North Ridgeville residents is still unresolved.
And I am pi**ed.

This stopped being about Urban County the moment more than 1,000 residents said, “We want to vote.”

They organized. They signed their names.

They used their Charter.

The petition was delivered to the President of Council on September 1st.
The Mayor submitted the Cooperation Agreement September 2nd.

One. Day. Later.

And here's what absolutely blows my mind:
Weeks later, Council is STILL waiting for an answer about whether the Mayor had the legal authority to proceed after that referendum was filed on September 1st.

If the City knew he had the authority, where is the legal basis?

And if the City didn't know, why did he sign it?

You don't sign first and research your authority later. You stop. You figure it out. Then you act.

And now the consequences are real.
HUD told me last week that before final approval, North Ridgeville still had another option. We could withdraw from FY2027 without permanently closing the door and could choose to participate beginning in FY2028 after the people voted.

That window closed yesterday while we were still waiting for legal answers.
Maybe we'll eventually learn the Mayor absolutely had the authority to proceed.
Fine.

Then we should have known that BEFORE he proceeded.

More than 1,000 residents did exactly what we constantly ask people to do. They participated. They followed the process. They invoked their Charter.
Their City didn't have to agree with them.
But their City should have respected the process.

Because you can doesn't mean you should.

And if you don't even know whether you can, you definitely shouldn't until you find out.

I'll share the detailed timeline and communications later. But right now, I want the people who signed that petition to know:

You participated. You followed the process. And you deserved for your City to respect it.

I am sorry that we didn't slow down long enough to do that.

08/21/2026

CITY COUNCIL RECAP — AUGUST 17

First, I hope all of our students had a great first day back! And to the parents, students, drivers and staff who had a much more stressful day than expected because of transportation issues, I know today was a rough one. I’ve seen and heard the frustration, and I know there are families who are still looking for answers. I hope tomorrow is a much smoother day for everyone.

On that note, thank you for your patience waiting for this recap. It has been a very busy week getting our family ready to go back to school, and Monday’s meeting had a lot to unpack. I wanted to make sure I had time to go back through the meeting and get the details.

So, finally... let’s talk about Monday night’s Council meeting.

○Appropriations○ YES on the spending, NO on accelerating the whole package

The first major piece of legislation was an amendment to our annual appropriations.

This included quite a few unrelated items: an epoxy floor at Fire Station #2, public-records software, accrued leave payouts, Police and Fire holiday/overtime pay, lubrication systems for two dump trucks, funding connected to the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge project, and several other appropriations.

I voted NO on dispensing with the second and third readings and NO on the emergency clause. I voted YES on the underlying legislation.

That distinction is important.
Some of the items in this package had legitimate urgency. Others, in my opinion, did not meet that same standard.

I said during the meeting that I think something gets lost when we bundle numerous appropriations together and then treat the entire package as an emergency simply because some pieces are urgent.

I'm not suggesting every expenditure needs its own ordinance. But I do think we need to be more mindful about distinguishing between something we want or need to accomplish quickly and an actual emergency.

I'll continue looking at those as two separate questions:
Do I support the legislation?
Does it actually require emergency passage?
Sometimes my answers will be yes and no.

○Power Cots & LUCAS Devices○

Next was the purchase of three Stryker power cots and three LUCAS mechanical CPR devices for our Fire Department.

We all voted YES, including on the accelerated/emergency passage.

I also want to specifically thank Fire Chief Reese for how this was handled.
Before the meeting, Chief Reese proactively emailed Council explaining the age and condition of the equipment, that some of it can no longer be serviced because replacement parts aren't available, and why timing mattered.

That's exactly the kind of information that helps us evaluate an emergency request. Rather than simply being told something needs to move quickly, Council was given the information necessary to understand why.

When there is a legitimate immediate need, particularly involving equipment our first responders rely on to care for residents, I have no problem supporting emergency legislation.

○Fund Advance For Chestnut and 83 Project○

We then considered a separate resolution authorizing a fund advance connected to the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge Roundabout project.

This one is easy to lose in the weeds.
Essentially, some grant-funded projects require the City to spend the money first and receive reimbursement afterward. This legislation allows money to be advanced from the General Fund to the NOPEC Grant Fund, with the General Fund being repaid after the project expenditures are made and reimbursement is received.
I voted YES.

○ODOT Sign Improvements○

Next was ODOT's replacement of aging overhead sign-support structures on SR 10.

We all voted YES.

We dispensed with the third reading and adopted the resolution, but we did not use an emergency clause.
The Mayor explained that ODOT needs the City's consent returned by early October. Because ordinary legislation becomes effective after the applicable waiting period, Council could meet that deadline without declaring an emergency.

I think that's worth pointing out because it demonstrates something I've been talking about: Dispensing with a reading and declaring an emergency are not the same thing.

We were able to move the legislation along faster while still allowing the normal effective-date period to occur.

○Assisted Living/Rest Home Moratorium○

The proposed additional 180-day moratorium on new assisted-living facilities and rest homes received its second reading.
No vote to adopt it occurred Monday.
It simply moved through the normal reading process.

○Sugar Ridge/Bender Roundabout○

Next was legislation allowing the City to apply for additional Ohio Public Works Commission funding for the proposed Sugar Ridge/Bender Road roundabout.

I voted NO on dispensing with the third reading, NO on the emergency clause, and NO on the legislation itself.

My opposition isn't about whether obtaining outside funding can reduce the City's cost. Of course it can.
But cheaper is not free, and obtaining a grant doesn't automatically make this a project I believe we should prioritize.

When I was knocking doors and talking with residents during the campaign, this proposed roundabout came up more than a few times, and the feedback I heard was that it is unessicary.

There are intersections and corridors that I (along with many residents) consider higher safety priorities. Lorain Road and Lear Nagle is one of the most obvious examples.

We know there are significant safety concerns there and, while there may eventually be a larger long-term solution, I think we should also be asking what smaller or temporary improvements could be made now.

When we're committing local resources, even as a match for outside funding, I want us asking:
Is this where our dollars can have the greatest impact?

For me, the answer on this project remains no.

○Behm Road Water Main / CDBG○

Next was the Behm Road water-main replacement.
I voted YES.

The City was awarded $150,000 in CDBG funding, with $30,000 retained by Lorain County for administration, leaving $120,000 toward the project.
The discussion then wandered considerably beyond the Behm Road project and into the recently approved Urban County agreement and the referendum petition currently circulating.

So I want to clarify something important.
The Behm Road CDBG grant predates North Ridgeville's participation in the new Urban County program.
This is funding obtained through the existing CDBG structure. It was not awarded because Council approved the new Urban County agreement earlier this month.

There was also a suggestion during the discussion that the referendum petition currently circulating is essentially a petition to block CDBG grants.

It is not.

The referendum concerns the ordinance approving North Ridgeville's participation in the new Urban County structure.

And signing a referendum petition is not itself a vote against the ordinance.
If enough valid signatures are collected, the question goes to the voters. Residents then decide whether the ordinance should stand.

That's an important distinction.
There are legitimate arguments in favor of the Urban County program, and there are legitimate questions and concerns about it. I voted no on that agreement; other members voted yes.

We can all explain and advocate for our positions.

But residents deserve an accurate understanding of what the petition does, what the new program changes, and what it doesn't change before making their own decision.

○Through-Truck Penalties○

Finally, Council unanimously approved increased penalties for prohibited through-truck traffic.
We all voted YES.

This one was particularly satisfying for me because addressing through-truck violations is something I raised before I was elected and continued advocating for afterward.

The goal is simple: if the penalty is too small, it can become little more than a cost of doing business. Stronger penalties should create a more meaningful deterrent for trucks illegally using residential and other prohibited routes.

I'm happy to see it move forward, regardless of whose name is attached to the legislation.

And now I want to see whether it works.

Passing legislation is only step one. Over time, I'd like us to look at citations, repeat violations and enforcement data to see whether the increased penalties actually reduce prohibited truck traffic.

One last thought...
Monday's meeting was a pretty good example of why I continue writing these recaps.

A roll-call vote tells you how seven Council members voted.
It doesn't necessarily tell you why.

I can support an expenditure while disagreeing that it constitutes an emergency.

I can support moving legislation faster without supporting an emergency clause.

Outside funding can make a project cheaper without convincing me it's our highest priority.

And when something said during a meeting doesn't match the information I have in front of me, I'm going to ask the question.

08/05/2026

A few thoughts after last night's City Council meeting...

Before I get started, I know there was a lot more on last night's agenda than just the Urban County designation. This post is specifically about that vote because it's been the topic of so many conversations over the past several weeks.

If you have any other questions I'm happy to answer those too. I just didn't want this post to turn into a novel. It's probably long enough already. 😅

Speaking of novels...
If nothing else, I can honestly say I've learned more about HUD and CDBG funding than I ever expected to in my lifetime.

I want to take a minute to explain where I was coming from because many of you have been following this the past several weeks.

This has been one of the most time-intensive issues I've worked on since taking office.

I've spent countless hours reading the agreement, reviewing HUD guidance, making phone calls, talking with county officials, trying to reach HUD, speaking with officials from other communities, consulting an attorney when our Law Director wasn't available, reviewing recordings and transcripts, and trying to verify information from multiple sources.

I also made a very intentional effort to challenge my own assumptions. I wasn't looking for information that supported one outcome or the other. I was looking for information that helped me fully understand what I was being asked to vote on.

One thing that is important to me when I'm researching is confirmation from more than one reliable source whenever possible.

Government agencies are not exactly known for their speedy callbacks, and despite repeated attempts, some of my questions remained difficult to confirm.

One thing this process reinforced for me is that research doesn't always give you certainty. Sometimes it gives you more questions.

Some concerns were resolved. Others weren't. Sometimes I received different answers depending on who I asked. That didn't make me want to stop asking questions. If anything, it convinced me I needed to keep asking them.

One thing that became increasingly important to me wasn't just what answers I received. It was how they were answered.

Confidence isn't built by repeatedly hearing that everything is fine. Confidence comes from receiving clear, direct answers to difficult questions, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, and having honest conversations about both the benefits and the risks.

Several times I found that even my most direct questions did not receive direct answers. The conversation would shift to a related topic, focus on why I shouldn't be concerned, or explain another part of the program. Whether intentional or not, I often walked away still looking for the answer to the original question.

One of the comments I made during the meeting was that if reasonable people can read the same agreement and come away with fundamentally different understandings of its obligations, protections, and risks, then I don't believe it provides the level of clarity Council should expect before entering into a long-term commitment. That wasn't meant as criticism of anyone who reached a different conclusion. It was simply the standard I applied when evaluating the agreement.

Ultimately, applying that standard led me to vote no. I understand that reasonable people reached a different conclusion, and I respect that. My hope is simply that, whether you agree with my vote or not, you understand how I arrived at it.

I've also heard people say that elected officials should simply exercise independent judgment regardless of public opinion.

I absolutely believe in independent judgment.

I also believe in representative government.

To me, those two things go hand in hand.

You didn't elect me to take a poll and vote accordingly.

You also didn't elect me to assume I know better than everyone else.

You elected me to listen, ask questions, do my homework, and exercise independent judgment while never losing sight of the people I'm representing.

Representative government isn't just about casting a vote. It's about making sure the people we represent have confidence that their concerns were genuinely considered. Even when I ultimately disagree with someone, I want them to know they were heard.

When a large number of engaged residents independently raise similar concerns, I don't see that as something to explain away. I see it as something worth understanding. Especially when those concerns are coming from people with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives.

I also want to address my comments about the emergency clause.

My concern was never about delaying legislation simply to delay it.
Emergency legislation is an extraordinary tool. It shortens the normal legislative process and removes the public's opportunity to pursue a referendum. I believe that authority should be reserved for true emergencies, not situations where the timeline was compressed because information wasn't provided with sufficient time to complete the normal legislative process.

This deadline did not arise because of a sudden, unforeseen emergency affecting North Ridgeville. It arose because the agreement reached Council with very little time remaining before the County's deadline. To me, that is fundamentally different.

When a compressed timeline is created by the process itself, I believe we should be cautious about using emergency legislation to solve that problem. Doing so asks both Council and the public to give up time they otherwise would have had to research, ask questions, and consider the issue.

In fact, I believe the opposite is true. When there is significant public interest or public pushback on an issue, the threshold for using an emergency clause should be even higher, not lower, unless there is a true emergency that cannot wait. Public engagement is not a reason to shorten the process. If anything, it is a reason to protect it.

I appreciated that the emergency clause was ultimately withdrawn because it preserved the normal legislative process. Whether someone believes a referendum is appropriate is up to them. I simply believe the public should have the opportunity to make that decision whenever possible.

Thank you to everyone who emailed, called, came to meetings, challenged my thinking, pointed me toward resources, and yes, occasionally sent me down a three-hour rabbit hole that somehow ended with me reading federal regulations at midnight. 😅

Whether we agreed or disagreed, I hope one thing has been clear throughout this process.
I took your concerns seriously.
I believed they were worth investigating.
And I will continue approaching every vote with that same commitment.

07/24/2026

North Ridgeville City Council Update | July 20, 2026

I wanted to share a recap of Monday night's City Council meeting and some of the discussions that took place, not just how we voted.

•Urban County (CDBG)•
Much of Monday evening's Lobby Session was dedicated to the proposed Resolution 2026-75, which would authorize North Ridgeville's participation in the Lorain County Urban County (CDBG) Program.

Residents asked thoughtful questions about funding and local control.

Another recurring concern was public visibility. It was questioned why there had been so little public discussion about the program before legislation was introduced and why many people were just learning about it now.
Those are fair questions.

Representatives from Lorain County explained the potential benefits of participating in the Urban County program, while residents shared concerns about transparency and the timeline leading up to the proposal.

Rather than voting on the resolution Monday evening, Council referred Resolution 2026-75 to the Committee of the Whole for additional discussion.
I supported taking more time. Regardless of where anyone ultimately stands on the proposal, I believe significant decisions deserve meaningful public discussion before Council acts. Giving residents the opportunity to ask questions, hear directly from those involved, and provide feedback leads to better informed decisions.

•Approved Legislation•
●Council approved Ordinance 2026-76, an emergency appropriations amendment to address current budget needs.
●Council also approved Ordinance 2026-70, authorizing a cooperative agreement with the City of Avon for the Mills Road resurfacing project.
●In addition, Council approved Ordinances 2026-65, 2026-66, and 2026-67, repealing outdated sections of the City's codified ordinances, as well as Ordinance 2026-68, updating the City's alarm ordinance by eliminating permit requirements.

•Infrastructure•
●Council also held the first reading of Ordinance 2026-74, which would increase the authorized funding for the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge Road Roundabout project after construction bids came in higher than the engineer's estimate.
The ordinance will continue on for a second reading at the August 3rd refular meeting.

●While voting on 2026-70, the administration informed Council that the City of Avon had already moved forward with its portion of the Mills Road resurfacing project bids and that North Ridgeville was now working to preserve the cooperative agreement between the two communities.

This was new information presented during the meeting while we were voting.

Significant developments like this are exactly why I believe keeping Council informed throughout the process is important. When major changes are shared as they occur, not only when legislation reaches the agenda, it gives Council the opportunity to ask better questions and make more informed decisions on behalf of residents.

•Looking Ahead to August 3•

At our next regular Council meeting, Council is expected to continue considering several important pieces of legislation.

Ordinance 2026-71, which would amend the City's Property Maintenance Code, is scheduled for its third reading. The proposal would revise administrative, enforcement, and exterior maintenance provisions, including expanding some standards beyond traditional health and safety concerns. Given the scope of these proposed changes, I encourage residents to review the legislation and share their thoughts with Council before a final vote.

Council is also expected to consider:
●Ordinance 2026-73 – Creating the Ridgefield Subdivision Tax Increment Financing (TIF) incentive districts.
●Ordinance 2026-74 – Additional authorization for the SR 83/Chestnut Ridge Road Roundabout project.
●Resolution 2026-75 – Participation in the Lorain County Urban County (CDBG) Program.
● Before the regular meeting we will have a Safety Committee meeting at 6pm to discuss E-Bike legislation.

However, if August 3rd is just too long to wait, we will be having a committee of the Whole Meeting on Monday (July 27th) at 6pm so further discuss 2026-75. This is something I have made a lot of calls about and done a lot of research on, and I hope we all hear more from our community!

As always, thank you to everyone who attends meetings, participates during Lobby Session and public comment, sends emails, or simply takes the time to stay informed.

Thank you for continuing to ask questions, staying engaged, and being part of the conversation!

07/17/2026

I'd like your thoughts on something coming before Council on Monday.
I've been researching Lorain County's proposed Urban County designation for the past couple of weeks, reading everything I can get my hands on, talking with people, and trying to understand both the potential benefits and the concerns being raised across the county.

I realize this isn't a simple "yes" or "no" issue.

On one hand, I can absolutely see the potential benefits for North Ridgeville. We're no longer the rural community we once were, and our infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with our growth. Additional funding opportunities could help address some very real needs.

On the other hand, I've also read concerns about local control, long-term planning, and trust in how the program will be administered. Those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration as well.

Before Monday's meeting, I'd really like to hear from North Ridgeville residents.
• Do you support participating? Why or why not?
• What concerns do you have?
• What questions would you like to have answered?

One of the reasons I was elected was because people wanted someone who would listen and be transparent. That hasn't changed. As always, my comments are open because I believe public discussion has value.

I don't expect everyone to agree, but I do want to hear from you before I cast my vote.

07/10/2026

🏛️ What You Need to Know:
Dispensing with Readings & Emergency Clauses

I have been meaning to make this breakdown for a bit. After Monday's Council meeting, it seemed like a good time.

📖 Dispensing with the Second and Third Readings

North Ridgeville ordinances are generally considered over three separate readings before final passage.

The purpose of those readings is to:
• Give Council time to review and ask questions.
• Allow the administration to provide additional information if needed.
• Give residents an opportunity to become aware of proposed legislation and share their thoughts before a final vote.

A motion to dispense with the second and third readings asks Council to shorten that process by waiving the remaining readings, allowing the ordinance to be considered sooner than it otherwise would be.

☆If that motion fails, the ordinance is not defeated. It simply follows the normal legislative process and returns for future readings.☆

⚠️ What Does an Emergency Clause Do?
An emergency clause is a completely separate vote.

Even after Council adopts an ordinance, it normally does not become effective immediately.

It's easy to think the 30-day waiting period is just there to make everything take longer. It's actually there to protect your rights.

That waiting period preserves the public's constitutional right to challenge legislation through the referendum process. During that time, residents have the opportunity to organize, circulate petitions, and, if enough valid signatures are collected under Ohio law, ask that the ordinance be submitted to the voters before it takes effect.

An emergency clause removes that waiting period, allowing the ordinance to become effective immediately upon passage.

Because emergency legislation also bypasses the referendum process, Ohio law requires that every emergency ordinance state the reason the emergency exists. Emergency legislation is intended for situations where immediate action is necessary, such as protecting public health or safety, preserving municipal operations, meeting legal or grant deadlines, or addressing another urgent governmental need.
For that reason, emergency clauses are generally intended to be the exception, not the rule.

🤔 So What's the Difference?
Think of it this way:
📖 Dispensing with Readings
Should Council shorten the legislative process?
⚠️ Emergency Clause
If the ordinance passes, should it become effective immediately instead of following the normal waiting period?
Those are two different questions, which is why Council votes on them separately.

My Perspective🧐

Reasonable people can disagree about when it's appropriate to dispense with readings or adopt an emergency clause. There are certainly times when moving legislation quickly is in the public's best interest.

My concern with dispensing with the second and third readings has always been public visibility.

Three readings don't just give Council additional time, they give residents multiple opportunities to see an ordinance on the agenda, ask questions, follow the discussion, and understand why decisions are being made.

I've often said that public discussions are more valuable than private conversations. When discussions happen in public, everyone hears the same questions, the same answers, and the same reasoning behind a decision. That's how public trust is built.

Likewise, my approach to emergency clauses is that they should be reserved for situations where immediate action is truly necessary. Because an emergency clause allows legislation to take effect immediately, it also eliminates the normal waiting period during which residents could exercise their constitutional right to pursue a referendum.

That doesn't mean I never support dispensing with readings or emergency clauses. I have voted for both when I believed the circumstances justified them. I simply believe they should be used thoughtfully and for the reasons they were intended.

One of my goals on council is to explain not only what Council does, but also how it works. Whether you agree with a particular vote or not, understanding the process helps all of us have more informed conversations about the decisions that affect our community.

Cali Zingale North Ridgeville Council At Large

09/19/2026

09/16/2026

08/21/2026

08/05/2026

07/24/2026

07/17/2026

07/10/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request