[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Interesting that both sites could have been in play. I think we took the words in SG "but was refused" to mean he offered on one, and then looked at another.  If it was a collaborative effort between parties, perhaps they were riding both sites almost simultaneously and one sort of gained favor for all reasons discussed.

Not hard to imagine that after CBM looked at the best topo features of the canal area site, and made a real concrete offer, that the folks at Alvord said no because it was too valuble, but didn't say no outright based on the land plan, as we have previously theorized.  Might not have been the roads at all!

We just don't know how it all went down, based on a few pages of writing from CBM.  However, it would have been just as easy for him to write that he took pony rides on several sites, although all those roads through the first site may have precluded the need for it!

Still fascinating to wonder about it though, you disingenous person, you!

[JESII]

Mike,

Don't you think "the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock stations" is the canal?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

That's what I thought it was the first time i read it, but David later convinced me that it was the inlet on the West edge of Cold Spring Bay.

At the time, the area known as "Good Ground" extended further east than the canal on some maps, further leading me to think that an inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station was the one at Cold Spring, which confirmed David's idea for me.

Feel free to convince me otherwise. 

[JESII]

I guess it doesn't make sense to me why that inlet would identified in connection with train stations when it's nowhere near the tracks...

David,

Good Ground may well have extended more to the east, but where was the station?

I know we can splice the sentence to exclude the Good Ground Station but for my humor, which side of the canal was it on? East or West?

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

My two month old computer died this morning.  I'm now awaiting new memory chips and new hard drive, so I can't give this thread as much attention, but, ..............

By contrast, do you think that the land of the existing NGLA golf course in any way had the 1906 Shinnecock GC adjoining to the east, skirted the Long Island Rail Tracks to the south, or has its most westerly point the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station?

Which of the two properties more accurately fall into the parameters described in the article?   Either?

I prefer to think that the article - which is wrong in so many aspects - was just describing a general area and not a specific property line.  So, no I don't think it fits either your suggested property or the final site, or even where I think the rejected 120 acre offer was.

Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large.  It measures out to 3400 acres.  The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too.  It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and  near Southampton on the east.  Pretty hard to draw based on that description.  I would draw the conclusion that news reporting of the time was pretty loose and easy about location.  I think in both cases you are trying to impart too much precision to general descriptions.  I'd be inclined to totally discount the October 15th article as an attempted scoop that was completely muddled.

And, OH CRAP, HERE GOES THE FLIPPING SCREEN AGAIN.  Clearly this is not going to be my computer day.

[JESII]

Bryan,

An attempted scoop using a pretty specific word such as purchased or secured? I guess anything's possible, but when it came true a matter of weeks later it seems to me like it was the scoop.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

I'm going with the theory that it was a general area description in which there wasn't a whole lot in the way of landmarks at that time.  Maps generally had Cold Springs Pond identifed on them; you'd think it would have been just as easy to call it the inlet to Cold Springs Pond, rather than relative to a couple of far away rail stations.

The Good Ground station was 9,440 feet west along the tracks from the North Highway overpass.  That puts it more than a mile west of the canal.  Using two rail stations seems like an odd way to define an inlet that is not really near either.  I think the article, including the location description, is just some more reportorial crap.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

An attempted scoop using a pretty specific word such as purchased or secured? I guess anything's possible, but when it came true a matter of weeks later it seems to me like it was the scoop.

They didn't "purchase" it two months later either.  I meant it was a scoop in the sense that the reporter probably wasn't working with information direct from CBM.  Maybe he heard snippets and ran with a story.  In that context, I don't put too much store on the exact boundary location.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Well, to be fair, it came true 2 months later, or more specifically, his securing of the land took place on a much more specific site two months later, with actual purchase coming about 4-6 months after that.

Also, NONE of the other NYC papers confirmed that it was indeed a scoop in the days that followed.


Bryan,

That sucks.   Sorry to hear it.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim/Bryan,

Here's the infamous 1914 map which Patrick insists should show the awesome width and breadth of the North Superhighway and called me a disengenous liar for using.  

In any case, looking at the location of Good Ground and Shinnecock Station would lead me to think that the canal was very possibly the inlet referred to in the story.

Don't know, but possibly?

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

One other thought,

1) I believe an accurate reading of CBM's book indicates that he made his first offer for the "Canal Site" not in late 1905, but in 1906 after his return from abroad.   I believe CBM decided that he would build his course somewhere in Shinnecock Hills in late 1905, after Alvord's company purchased the whole shebang late that year.   Within a month or so, CBM was on a boat to GBI for five months, not just to study the great courses and ideal holes, but more precisely, to have exact surveyor's topographical maps drawn of them.    I don't believe CBM would have made an offer for a specific parcel of land PRIOR to having the exact specs for what he wanted to build on that land.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  Are you suggesting that CBM needed to have exact topo maps of his ideal hole from the UK because he intended to replicate exact copies of them?  And, that he wouldn't have offered on a piece of land until he had those exact topo plans of the ideal holes?  In the end he built holes that were inspired by his ideal holes.  They were not exact copies.  For that he didn't need "exact specs" or "exact surveyor's topographical maps" of them, did he?  So, I'm not sure you can draw your conclusion that he wouldn't make an offer until he had his exact topo maps of the originals.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

These two pages lead me to the belief that CBM felt that having the surveyor maps was an integral first step he needed to complete prior to selecting land;

[JESII]

Mike,

Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large.  It measures out to 3400 acres.  The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too.  It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and  near Southampton on the east.  

Bryan,

Canoe Place Creek looks to be the canal, and the Eastern Edge of the Olmstead Plan appears pretty close to what Mike has drawn, not exact, but close enough IMO. Where would you think he has it wrong?

The exact lines along the waters edge surely make up some acreage...

[DMoriarty]

This is crazy.   Mike fails to answer the pending questions and instead gives us a list of his beliefs and we start over again at square one?   We have covered all this ground before!

I'm hopeful as well that my post above includes my responses to David's questions about the site.  If there is anything I missed, please let me know and I'll try to give my best shot.

You haven't even begun to address my questions or analysis.   For example, on multiple occasions I have set out for you a list of specific reasons why the site described in the October articles is NOT the site described as the site "near the canal" in Scotland's Gift.  I have repeatedly asked you to address each of my points, but despite repeated promises to do so and week after week supposedly considering my points, you have not even begun to address these points.  There are other questions you ignored, but let's start there.  

Rather than addressing my points, what you have again set out a series of a series paragraphs setting out "what [you] think happened."  Such an exercise can be useful to the extent it helps you clarify your position to yourself and others, so thanks for that.  That said, your list of beliefs doesn't really advance the conversation.  Rather it seems to have reset the scoreboard and sent us back to go over everything again.  

Meanwhile, the real issue here is whether or not your beliefs are actually reasonable interpretations of the totality of the source material, and whether they are the best interpretation.   In my opinion there is no reason to get to the latter because in my opinion your beliefs are unreasonable..  

For example, for the reasons I have repeatedly provided, I think it is unreasonable for you to believe that your mystery site was actually the Canal site described in Scotland's Gift.  Will you please address each of my reasons and explain the reasonableness of your position given each of these reasons?

Likewise, your interpretation of the land described in the October articles is unreasonable. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if you can somehow jury-rig your mystery site to sort of fit with the description in the articles then the articles must have been referring to something other than the site CBM was considering on and under Sebonac Neck.  You cannot.   While you may refuse to accept it, the description fits the site CBM was considering on and under Sebonac Neck, and this would be so even if the site you keep manipulating also fit (it doesn't.)   You wrote:

By contrast, do you think that the land of the existing NGLA golf course in any way had the 1906 Shinnecock GC adjoining to the east, skirted the Long Island Rail Tracks to the south, or has its most westerly point the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock Station?

This is the sort of cherry-picking and manipulation of the facts that leads to the use of the dreaded "D" word.  You conveniently forgot the part about how the land stretched along Peconic Bay. And your focus on the other aspects of the description is hardly reasonable and objective.  Let's go through the description once again . . .
1.  The land stretched along Peconic Bay.  
    -  Your various proposed sites do not stretch along Peconic Bay.  
    -  The Sebonac Neck property obviously stretches along Peconic Bay.
2.  The land "skirted" the RR to the South.
    - This could mean either that the land was next to the RR or that it it was near the RR, but not next to it.  
    - Your various proposed sites are all either further away from the RR or not appreciably closer to the RR than the actual site.
3. The land adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course to the east.
   - I've produced source material indicating that by this point SHGC owned land to the east of a portion of the land currently occupied by NGLA.  (Additionally the land being considered may have even extended further south.)  
   - While you have proclaimed this source material inaccurate, you have never produced anything supporting your proclamation.
   - Even if you were correct on this point (you aren't) the very best you could do is to claim that SHGC was catty-corner to the southwest instead of west.  Hardly reason to throw out the site.
   -  Most of your various sites do not even adjoin the land you claim was SHGC!  Some miss it entirely to the north.  Others are well west.  
4. The westerly point was "near" the inlet.  
   - You change this by claiming the westerly point was the inlet, but the articles clearly claim it was NEAR the inlet, not at it or past it.  Yet your various proposed sites actually put the westerly point at or past the inlet.  Granted, out of context "near" could be past. But in the context of the description it seems nonsensical to read the passage as having the land stretch along Peconic Bay to westerly point "near the inlet" if the westerly point was actually past the inlet.)
   -  The definition of "inlet" is far from specific and it is unclear whether the author was referring to the opening of Cold Spring pond or the narrow section or all of it.  The fact that "Inlet Road" on the 1907 land plan stretches about halfway along the waterway suggests that Inlet meant more than just the opening.  Chances are that the author did not have any idea to what he was referring but was just doing his/her best with the description someone had given him.  
  - Regardless, the westerly border of the Sebonac Neck property is Cold Springs Harbor/Bay/Pond/Inlet, and as can be seen on the 1907 plan, stretched all the way to the opening.  That is how CBM (in Scotland's Gift) and the various December articles described the larger parcel.

I am having trouble understanding how you can continue to ask us to throw out the most obvious interpretation of the article and replace with it a never before mentioned mystery site right through the heart of an ongoing development project.   Like it or not, the description fits the Sebonac Neck property, by which I mean not only Sebonac Neck, but also the land CBM was considering below the actual Neck.

Which of the two properties more accurately fall into the parameters described in the article?   Either?

First, the Sebonac Neck property - the land CBM described as the 450 acres out of which he chose his golf course - falls well within parameters described in the article.  
  Second, later descriptions of the 450 acres track the key points of the October article.  For example, CBM in Scotland's Gift:  ". . . 450 acres of land on Sebonack Neck, having a mile frontage on Peconic Bay lying between Cold Springs Harbor and Bull's Head Bay. . . .  It adjoined Shinnecock Hills Golf Course."  There it is.  
- A mile along Peconic Bay is certainly stretching along Peconic Bay.  
- And if Cold Springs Harbor is the landmark to the west then whatever "inlet" means the land in question was surely near it.  
- It adjoined SHGC, and I have posted source material indicating that it adjoined to the east. You keep claiming it adjoined SHGC to the south, but the closest border was to the east unless you are claiming that CBM was considering land all the way down to St. Andrews road.
  Third, as explained above, your various sites are by far the worse fit. While you constantly change the picture, generally your sites don't fit as well because . . .  
   - They do not stretch along Peconic Bay.  
   - They are not appreciably closer to the RR.
   - They do not adjoin SHGC.  
   - They all end past the canal or at it, they don't stretch along the bay to a point near the canal.

There are many more problems with your long statement of belief, but rather that start all over again, I'd appreciate if you would finally address my reasons why your site is not the canal site.

[DMoriarty]

I think one area we may still disagree is the site of the land described in the Oct article.    If it included Sebonac Necik, it would include a site over 1000 acres in size, which really seems to me to include both the original site as well as the site he eventually purchased.  

This just isn't true.  

The "original site" was NEAR THE CANAL.  Your yellow-lined rendering goes nowhere "near the canal" and therefore it does not contain "the original site" described by CBM.   Similarly, your yellow-lined rendering borders SHGC.  

As you have acknowledged, Scotland's Gift provided our only description of the canal site.  CBM didn't want to be near SHGC and tried to buy 120 acres near the canal.  Yet you ignore CBM's description in its entirety!  That is not reasonable. (You even have this happening a year after CBM decided to buy land in the Shinnecock Hills!)

And even if the October description could fit 1000 acres, so what?  The article does not purport to be an exact metes-and-bounds description of the final site.  And it doesn't purport to be describing "specific" land as you claim.  It describes the general location of the land with very little specificity, and the 450 acre site fall well within this description.  
  
Even you recognize that the 450 acres is a subset of the larger 1000 acre site the article might describe, yet you try to force another separate and independent site into the same thousand acres?  What is your REASONABLE basis for so doing?  Surely not Scotland's Gift.

Besides, whether it is 1000 acres or 10,000 acres, the land in question had to stretch along Peconic Bay to a point near the inlet.  Assuming the "inlet" is the body of water next to "Inlet Road," the only property that fits the bill is Sebonac Neck!

This is where reasonableness and good faith comes into play. We know that two months after these articles, the purchase was finalized.  We also know that the description in the articles is similar to that in Scotland's gift and later articles.  We also know that sometimes articles (and clubs) were sometimes premature in announcing their purchases.  Etc.  
  
Yet whether you call it the canal site or not, you have created a third site out of whole cloth because you don't want to accept the more obvious interpretation.   That is unreasonable.

[JESII]

David,

It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.

[DMoriarty]

I guess it doesn't make sense to me why that inlet would identified in connection with train stations when it's nowhere near the tracks...

I can't put myself in the mind of whoever came up with the description, but I figured Cold Spring harbor/bay/inlet/pond was visible from the train.   The inlet is less than a half-mile from the RR line which, according to the 1903 map, was at around 75 ft. elevation when it passes by the inlet.

Also the southern point of NGLA is only about 600 yards from the RR tracks, and we don't know how much further south the 450 acre site extended.  So I am not sure we could characterize the described land as "nowhere near the tracks.")  Whether it was "skirted" by the tracks to the south is a matter of interpretation, I guess, but I don't think the description is unreasonable given that the land was readily accessible to the RR and station, yet not right on the tracks.  (Note that skirting as opposed to bordering the tracks was a big plus to CBM, who wanted to be alone with nature but still wanted to be close to NY.

David, Good Ground may well have extended more to the east, but where was the station?

I haven't been able to figure out the exact location but the station was definitely west of the canal.   But it doesn't say "Good Ground Station" it says "Good Ground."  And it doesn't say "stations" it says "station."   So, heading east on the train, the inlet was after Good Ground but before Shinnecock Station.  

David,  It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.

I considered this and discussed it initially, but it doesn't say "canal."  It says "inlet."  Why would anyone refer to the Shinnecock Canal as an inlet?

Were there no actual inlet fitting the description, I might be inclined to believe that the reporter meant canal but wrote "inlet."  But there and was an inlet fitting the description and it was apparently known as an "inlet."  The 1907 rendering identifies "Inlet Road" running alongside it!     

By "it" I mean the inlet, not the canal.   Sometimes "inlet" just means "inlet."

[JESII]

David,

In your second paragraph there, I agree. I was saying the inlet is no near the tracks while the canal is traveled over once you pass Good Ground and Good Ground station and before you get to Shinecock Station.

I guess my point is that I think the descriptions are describing the entire area of the land company's holdings north of the train tracks.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, if the western point of the land was along Peconic Bay and well away from the RR tracks then I would think the identifying landmark might be away from the tracks as well.  If the inlet was visible from the train, then the reference makes sense, doesn't it?

Anyway, it doesn't seem like the articles are describing the whole area north of the tracks to me, but it really ought to make no difference.  If the articles were describing the SHPBRC land north of RR then I don't think there is any way to reasonably exclude the Sebonac Neck property  

That said, I am afraid you have given Mike his next excuse to start over again.  Rather than admitting that the description could reasonably include Sebonack Neck, and rather than finally addressing my points, I expect Mike will latch on to your reading (one he previously objected because treating the inlet as the inlet made more sense to him) with the added caveat that Sebonac Neck was somehow excluded, and we will start this process over again.  In short, I am afraid Mike's approach to interpreting the articles is Anything-But-Sebonac-Neck but I hope he proves me wrong

[Phil_the_Author]

The Good Ground train station/depot has not alwaays been in the same location. When it was first opened in 1871 it was in Hampton Bays. In 1874 a new one was opened in Good Ground. This continued until 1913. Then a new station was opened. That is why I bring this to your attention as the latest map you showed with the "Good Ground" station on it is from 1914 and is quite a ways from the canal. I have contacted some research friends at the Long Island Studies Institute to see if I can get you an exact location for the station in 1906. What I can provide for you, and I think both the ratio of automobiles to horse-drawn wagons is quite telling as is the paving of the roadway, is a photograph of the Good Ground train depot/station taken in 1909. That's at the bottom of the page.

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm

LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD
Alphabetical Station Listing
and History
(Compiled from data researched by
Vincent F. Seyfried, Robert M. Emery, Art Huneke and Jeff Erlitz)


HAMPTON BAYS   MONTAUK   OPENED: 2/1871 AS “GOOD GROUND”,
         BURNED: 11/4/1873
      2ND DEPOT OPENED: 1/10/1874,
         CLOSED: 1913, USED AS EX-
         PRESS HOUSE FOR 3RD  DEPOT.
      3RD DEPOT OPENED: SUMMER/ 1913,
         AGENCY CLOSED: 1958, RAZED:
         c. 1964. STATION STOP MOVED
         2,000’ WEST: 12/26/74
      4TH , RELOCATED DEPOT WITH HI-
         LEVEL PLATFORMS BUILT: 2000-01

[Mike Cirba]

Jim/David,

So, you're both in agreement that the "inlet" was the canal??

I'm confused on what you're agreeing about because it sounds as though you are both making widely different points.

Jim seems to be arguing that the site described in the paper is ALL of Alvord's holdings and David seems to be arguing that it's referring only to the mere 250 or 205 or 450 acres that CBM eventually purchased on Sebonac Neck.

So, let's start west...where is the writer saying the western bprder was; the canal or the inlet?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

The linked judicial decision helps explain the timing of the construction of the roads and crossings, the locations of the crossings, and the belated timing of the dedication..  It seems the town refused the dedication until certain conditions were met by SHPBRC. The  RR was somewhat caught in the middle and eventually sued both the and SHPBRC.

http://books.google.com/booksid=zY47AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA887&dq=%22canoe+place%22+shinnecock+hills&hl=en&ei
=s7mbTYv7EqiC0QGN2sHhAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=twopage&q&f
=false

From the opinion with my bold:

In May, 1906, the Railroad Company and the Realty Company entered into an agreement by which the Railroad Company agreed to build a new station to cost about $1,000 at a new location near the west end of the Hills, to be mutually agreed upon; to repair and paint the Shinnecock Hills station and put in three undergrade crossings for the public road, one at each end of the new north road which the Realty Company was then building, the other for a cross-road just west of the Shinnecock Hills station. In passing, the crossing upon the cross-road is not here in dispute. That was built solely at the cost of the Railroad Company.
. . .
[]On December 4, 1906, the railroad commissioners made an order eliminating the grade crossings upon said highways and providing for the building of the two new crossings under the railway. The Railroad Company thereafter built these two crossings under the railway, in accordance with said order, the total cost of which was $17,905.28, no part of which has been paid by either the state or the town. Some negotiations were then had between the town board, the highway commissioners, and the Realty Company in relation to obtaining the necessary consents and preparing the formal papers; but nothing definite was done until, at a meeting of the highway commissioners on the 3d day of June, 1908, a resolution was passed, of which the following is a copy:

'Moved and carried that the secretary inform the Shinnecock Hills & Peconic Bay Realty Company that the town board and commissioners of highways are not ready to accept the proposed roads across the property of said company until the following objections and conditions are met as per original agreement: . . . '

So SHPBRC was in the process of building the North Road in May of 1906 and the underpasses at each end were completed sometime after December 4, 1906, but substantially before June 3, 1908.

Given the description of the west underpass, working backward would put the Good Ground station at the northeast corner of the intersection of Springville Rd. and the track

___________________________________

Mike,

No.  We are not in agreement that the "inlet" was the canal.    I think the "inlet" was the inlet.

[Bryan Izatt]

Phil,

Here is a site that I posted some weeks ago that describes the history and location of the station.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Bays_(LIRR_station)  In these uncertain times, I guess Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source.  Anyway, if it is correct, you can surmise the location of the station.

After dealing with Pat's photo interpretation skills over the last few days, I hope that what you are seeing is a graded dirt road.  Just wanted to check.  And, it sure does look busy around that station.   

The Good Ground train station/depot has not alwaays been in the same location. When it was first opened in 1871 it was in Hampton Bays. In 1874 a new one was opened in Good Ground. This continued until 1913. Then a new station was opened. That is why I bring this to your attention as the latest map you showed with the "Good Ground" station on it is from 1914 and is quite a ways from the canal. I have contacted some research friends at the Long Island Studies Institute to see if I can get you an exact location for the station in 1906. What I can provide for you, and I think both the ratio of automobiles to horse-drawn wagons is quite telling as is the paving of the roadway, is a photograph of the Good Ground train depot/station taken in 1909. That's at the bottom of the page.

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm

LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD
Alphabetical Station Listing
and History
(Compiled from data researched by
Vincent F. Seyfried, Robert M. Emery, Art Huneke and Jeff Erlitz)


HAMPTON BAYS   MONTAUK   OPENED: 2/1871 AS “GOOD GROUND”,
         BURNED: 11/4/1873
      2ND DEPOT OPENED: 1/10/1874,
         CLOSED: 1913, USED AS EX-
         PRESS HOUSE FOR 3RD  DEPOT.
      3RD DEPOT OPENED: SUMMER/ 1913,
         AGENCY CLOSED: 1958, RAZED:
         c. 1964. STATION STOP MOVED
         2,000’ WEST: 12/26/74
      4TH , RELOCATED DEPOT WITH HI-
         LEVEL PLATFORMS BUILT: 2000-01

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

The judicial decision looks interesting.  I'd like to look at it directly, but the link does not work.  Even copying it and removing CR's and repasting it doesn't work.  Can you fix it?  In these days of Tall Tales, I'd like to see the source.

I agree to your location of the Good Ground Station.  I do think that the article places the inlet between the two stations - or at least that's how it reads to me.  I understand you take a more literal interpretation.  What escapes me is why they wouldn't have used the canal as a reference point rather than Good Ground or Good Ground Station.  The canal had been there for years and must have been pretty well known.  I agree that the inlet is the Cold Springs Pond inlet.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Re your latest drawing, I think you've made the Alvord holding too large.  It measures out to 3400 acres.  The description of the Alvord holding was pretty generic too.  It ends at Canoe Place Creek on the west and  near Southampton on the east.  

Bryan,

Canoe Place Creek looks to be the canal, and the Eastern Edge of the Olmstead Plan appears pretty close to what Mike has drawn, not exact, but close enough IMO. Where would you think he has it wrong?

The exact lines along the waters edge surely make up some acreage...

I cannot place Canoe Place Creek on old maps, but it seems logical that it is the canal.  But then, why didn't they refer to the west boundary as the canal rather than calling it the creek.  The canal had been built for 20 years.  Odd.

I think Mike has gone too far east towards Southampton.  If I ever get my main computer back together, I'll try to map out where 2700 acres would get you.  The north, south and west boundaries are pretty well defined.  Only the east requires playing with.


Would you agree that CBM's estate wasn't part of the Peconic Bay Realty tract?  Just curious.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()