YES in My Back Yard: In Defense of a Homeless Shelter at the Karcher Site.




Tomorrow night’s Anaheim City Council meeting (Tuesday April 7th) is almost certain to be one of the longest and most contentious on record, at least since July 2012, and I don’t want to even compare the environment that night for fear of a repeat. We have numerous issues on the Agenda that will bring out a variety of passionate crowds, and the powers that be are likely to load the Chambers with their own pro forma supporters, ensuring a packed house. In a sick version of déjà vu, Anaheim has also experienced additional officer-involved shootings since the last Council meetings, also certain to bring crowds to the Chambers.

I have been working all weekend to review the Agenda Items and offer background information and research from my files, so that those who do brave the crowds may be better informed. So watch this space for additional posts, as OJB covers the issues one by one.

anaheim rioter

What I cannot do is prepare for the crowds we KNOW are headed for City Hall tomorrow night, and I can only pray that the administration does a better job of expecting the mass of humanity than they did that hot evening in July 2012, when someone’s idea of “crowd control” skipped over planning for stanchions, public communication equipment, or other best practices we know to be used to corral crowds into an orderly system, permitting access to a public meeting they have the right to attend. Instead our grand and glorious law enforcement professionals called in the riot squads, who were present in the building prior to the start of the Council meeting in July 2012, and it seems the overtime-generating show of quasi-military force was the ONLY preparation taken by the “professionals” in charge. One can only hope we have learned our lessons and will do a better job this time. If the administration is still clueless or without resources, we can probably borrow a little something from the storage room of our famous neighbor, in a “public private partnership.”

disney queue

I will take the Agenda items one at a time, so those reading may chose the issues important to them. Please let me know if we have missed anything, so OJB can fill in the blanks before tomorrow night. Call me selfish but we are in for a long night. If OJB can help answer a question then perhaps we can reduce the line of folks asking for information not yet provided by their own government (which we increasingly find ourselves doing) and/or perhaps we can elevate the information level of the discussion certain to take place at the dais by arming those who plan to speak with genuine fact-based arguments, and links for source materials.

Unlike some other blogs, we also welcome opposing views, because as iron sharpens iron, so a strongly held opposing view forces us to dig in deeper and research our own views to defend them-and at times abandon them to join the opposition when we discover we are mistaken. Respectful discussion is invited. Name calling is not needed, and if it degrades to that, OJB will be infinitely better at it, with Cantor, Zenger and Nelson backing up the snark, so let’s not even start.

moving from Karcher Site to Canyon Business Center
by invitation of the Kleptocracy

Item 27 features a Staff Report I have had to re-read repeatedly in order to understand that both the City of Anaheim and at least one County Supervisor (Spitzer) aided by a Fullerton City Council member, really are serious about drafting official governmental policy rooted in absolute bold-faced bigotry against an entire class of American citizens, based on nothing but their economic status. Had this meeting been scheduled one week earlier I would expect Spitzer to jump out from behind the podium and shout, “April Fool’s!”

There is no question that Orange County has a problem with homelessness. Some claim the homeless are coming from other parts of the country because California is a good place to be homeless. The weather is nice and with all the liberals in California we feed them well. The truth is that for every person who comes to California to find themselves on the streets, most believed they had work, a home, and a network waiting for them here. When offered a bus ticket “home” to where they began, they gladly accept it, as homeless with family in a familiar place is preferable to homeless in a place entirely lacking in compassion, no matter how good he weather is, where rents are so unaffordable that one may never lift themselves by the bootstraps without assistance. To believe otherwise is to believe that the majority of the homeless population WANTS to be homeless. History tells us there has always been a very small percentage of the homeless population that enjoys the “free spirit” lifestyle. During the Depression they were called bums or hobos, and understandably avoided. It is mindboggling (and beneath the intelligence of most who promote this view) to believe that the dramatic increase of homeless citizens living on Orange County’s streets are driven by some inexplicable rise in a desire to live without the constraints of walls and a roof and rules set by society.

The increase in homelessness is based on simple math. Wages have not kept pace with inflation, housing costs have escalated even faster than general inflation factors, (especially in Orange County) and the safety net we like to believe is there for the “least of these” frankly does not exist. With families now spread geographically wide, someone dealing with a spouse who is mentally ill or physically disabled now means not having in-home relational-network help. This limits the ability of the able spouse to earn wages while acting as a caregiver, and both spouses end up on the streets-sometimes with children! Times have changed and we have not kept pace with those changes, to prevent what is quickly becoming one of the greatest tragedies in domestic social disasters.

Sadly, we justify doing nothing to aid the most vulnerable population in America today, by convincing ourselves they deserve to be on the streets, that they are criminals, drug addicts, and sexual predators unwilling to register their location with the online mapping programs, or that they have otherwise chosen to drop out of the system.  I have news for you.  Those people live among us NOW, very likely in a home near you.  Possession of a Schlage stamped piece of metal on a key ring does not make one NOT a predator or felon, and drug addicts drive BMWs to their cushy office.  Are we afraid of drunks and addicts and felons, or only afraid of the ones who are not successful at it?  Have we established what percentage of the homeless population is in fact criminal?  And how many of those criminal charges resulted from otherwise decent people being forced into criminal behavior by homelessness, such as the indecent exposure charge for someone forced to eliminate bodily functions in the public space of bushes for lack of a real toilet available to them?  Where are the statistics before we jump to conclusions?

Those of us who were floored that the City would offer Arte Moreno deal points many considered INSANE based on a 13 page report written on sheets of marshmallow fluff must accept that the poorest of Anaheim’s poor are being denied the basic right of a place to simply BE and EXIST within our community with NO STUDY AT ALL. How could Anaheim’s homeless policy be even less substantiated than our policy on Angels Stadium?!

five points mission

We refuse to consider a shelter in our area because we envision the please for funding by Skid Row rescue missions during the holidays, depicting packs of toothless filthy men lined up for their daily chow, amid the barracks type housing of cots and bunk beds lining the walls of a dormitory style warehouse of humanity.

warm center

No, none of us wants that in our neighborhood and I don’t think we are evil to say so. Ask the homeless and they will tell you they don’t particularly want to be there either. Yet nobody has checked to see what is being built, or who is running it, not even those complaining about its location.



I have a challenge for anyone reading this who thinks another delay is no big deal, in order to “get it right”

Tonight, leave your doors unlocked. Your windows, too. Maybe even open them. Now go to bed. Go ahead. How much sleep are you going to get?

homeless woman

Now try it WITHOUT WALLS. (I hope you can hear me screaming through clenched teeth at this point.)  How long does each and every dark, terrifying hour of that night seem to you NOW? Do you want to lock the doors and windows or do you want to be told you can’t yet, because we have not “gotten it right?”

 homeless kids

YES, IN MY BACKYARD! (Yimby?) There is a t-shirt idea.

The Karcher property IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, I live within easy walking distance of the proposed Karcher site, certainly closer to it than the Rio Vista neighbors who have been worked into a frenzy by lack of information about the Kraemer property. I know the people who have previously expressed their fears are good people who want to retain the very little home equity remaining to them. The fearful residents are not heartless NIMBYs. For many of us our home equity is a large part of our investment for the future, having watched our 401K balances tank. We cannot afford something that could permanently and irreversibly destroy that financial stability we have fought so hard to retain in a down market. To advocate for a shelter at the Karcher site means putting on the line all of the sweat equity and hard work that homeowners put into our historic homes (you think YOU have a “fixer-upper”? You cannot imagine…)

And yet, I am writing to say that while I am likely to be burned in effigy by neighbors, I want to invite the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim to please ignore the grandstanding of Todd Spitzer, and build the shelter at the Karcher site.

If you read Cunningham’s blog they work hard to convince folks that “everyone” in the Colony hates Cynthia Ward anyway, so what do I have to lose? One may note that like our local government, the AnaheimBlog also fails to run actual academic studies. Does the opinion that “everyone in the Colony hates Cynthia Ward” include all of the historic districts or only the central Colony District? Did this opinion poll include the non-English speaking residents? Has it accounted for recently relocated residents who have not yet heard of me and might need additional outreach to ensure they too hate Cynthia Ward as all others do?

Not content to accept the lack of study from my own government, I went looking on my own, in addition to interviewing homeless advocates and the homeless themselves. And I want my neighborhood to be known for its architecture, its history, and its heart for humanity. I also want the INCREASED real estate values of getting homeless residents OFF THE STREETS where they are doing real damage to our resale values where they are now. Lack of a shelter does not mean no homeless people in our area, it means they remain “in residence” in the alley behind 7-11. How does our current “solution” help my property values?

Sadly there has been no visible effort by officials in my area, to assure us that housing prices DO NOT DROP with a homeless shelter, despite numerous studies showing that in some cases values even IMPROVE as we move from homeless people living on the streets to living in shelter, and transitioning to permanent housing!

2008 Study,  Updated 2013

and the most recent study from February 2015,-do-homeless-shelters-harm-neighborhoods.html#.VReT3zTF88Y


The truth is that it costs us more in public dollars to leave the homeless on the streets than it does to house them.

That is why Utah has largely addressed their own homeless issue by simply HOUSING their poor. Expensive? Yes, and let’s face it, Utah is not known for using government funds for social programs. Yet somehow even Utah understands that there is a community wide civic responsibility to solving the issues because there is community wide impact resulting from the problem of people living on the streets that all of us would prefer to enjoy without tents or toilet paper. It’s kind of a no-brainer.

Despite available funding, a location in Fullerton was rejected, without environmental study to determine impacts. We blame “NIMBYs” but it is the job of civic leaders acting as “lead agency” (That would be the County in this case) to inform and educate those who may be impacted, and assure them of mitigation for negative impacts, when those negative impacts are proven by studies. The County had their hearts in the right place on this (thank you for trying Shawn) but then dropped the ball to follow through on the very real fears of their own constituents.

The City of Anaheim stepped up and purchased a site, one that frankly I was going to suggest as a shelter location when it hit the market, and Anaheim beat me to even sending an email to City Hall. It is close to the support services needed for a RESIDENTIAL use, as well as a commercial use, as this special designation is transitional in zoning requirements. Despite our constant attempts to convert warehouses for the use of human beings, a “from scratch” design can better meet the needs for the large dining room, small private counseling offices, private dorm-style spaces, of a transitional shelter, not a “rescue mission” as envisioned by too many of us in the absence of credible information. The Karcher site is close to transportation for those without it, and most of all, it is where a significant population of residents lacking homes are already attempting to survive.

As an interim solution the site could even be developed into a campsite that provides showers, toilets, secure storage for possessions, and a central location for social service programs to help get someone into a permanent program and off the streets, while offering a place to simply exist without harassment. Is this less desirable to both the homeless and the locals than the constant cycle of push and pull between residents, Police, and those being levied with fines they cannot afford for camping in a space not intended for that use, for lack of anywhere else to go?

jamboreeAnaheim has done this once before. Yet we still have not learned.

Years ago the Diamond Street project was proposed by Redevelopment, with the intent to house homeless or those in danger of homelessness with at least one family member dealing with mental illness issues. In the absence of RDA outreach or credible information, the usual rumor mill ground up the project, aided in this case by the always fact-based (?!) “Colony email group.” Keep in mind this is a vehicle both Gail Eastman and Lucille Kring believed would be receptive to their notorious shared messages,  Thank God for the riots so we didn’t have to voteand “saved us a trial.”

The reality was this:

“This innovative residential community in Anaheim, co-developed by Jamboree Housing Corporation and H.O.M.E.S. (Helping Our Mentally Ill Experience Success), is a pioneering multifamily development that provides both housing and mental health supportive services for previously homeless individuals and their families. For these residents with persistent mental illness, permanent housing is critical to providing stability and ongoing mental health services.  Diamond Apartment Homes will provide housing that allows families to remain together – and in some cases reunite them.” 

Somehow “family member with mental health issues” morphed into sex offenders and predators, and the usual arguments spewed onto the microphone at the City Council meeting;

  • Property values will drop.
  • Crime will increase.
  • Other communities will dump their homeless in the area, even when the shelter is full, and we will be overrun with the un-housed, unwashed humanity of the entire County.
  • A permanent bureaucracy will be formed that will never die or release its death grip on our wallets.

Council Minutes: “Johanna Gullick Jamboree Housing Corporation spoke in support of Item No 6. To correct misinformation disseminated at the last Council meeting, she stated Jamboree held public and neighborhood meetings and offered tours of several similar developments. The comments and concerns received related to density whether or not the units were for families, alternative uses of the site, and points of contacts for any problems occurring on the site. She reported Jamboree had reduced the facility from 33 units to 25 units, increased the two bedroom units from four to ten, and eliminated all studio units. She emphasized resident screening was extensive, and sex offenders or those with violent or criminal backgrounds were prohibited from living on the site. In addition, there would be a property manager on site, as well as two caseworkers.

 She added studies had shown that property values were not negatively impacted with the location of this type of resident facility, and she believed the developer had come up with a design in the spirit of Anaheim s historical district, and would continue to work with neighborhood residents.

 Helen Cameron, Executive Director of Homes Inc., addressed the Jamboree project, remarking that a similar home had been located in Anaheim for 15 years and had never received a complaint from a neighbor. She pointed to the need for this type of program in the community and described the typical resident clientele.”

I cried during that meeting. I cried at the ignorance that had built to the point that Jamboree’s efforts to step in and educate residents where Redevelopment had failed was too little too late. The City Council of the time approved the project over local objections (and threats of recall) and while Curt Pringle’s finger-waggling admonitions from the dais were understandable, they would have been unneeded if his highly paid staff had simply done their jobs with adequate outreach.

Fast forward to today, and the Diamond project has been in place for years. Architecturally it is such a pleasing design that it is one of the few new construction projects I would live in. I cannot recall any locals speaking at City Council with “I told you so, these people turned out to be the menace we predicted.” I have met the residents of the program, they have attended a function at the location where I do volunteer work, and a much beloved friend of mine offers art classes in their community room, She has not yet been axe murdered, nor even threatened.  Whaddya-know?

In fact, Jamboree recently held up this project as an example of what a great thing they could do in Laguna Beach!



“That the City Council adopt a resolution evidencing its support and assistance for the County of Orange’s efforts to develop a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center at an industrial site in the Canyon Business Center.”

Do we all understand what we put into “Industrial” Zones?  We place the land uses that we find undesirable, either the sight or smell or noise of some necessary but uncomfortable activity needs somewhere to go, but we don’t want it near our homes or office space.  In short, “the homeless” represent a population of American citizens that should by all rights be classified as a protected class, as they are the most vulnerable population present in society today.  Yet County Supervisor Todd Spitzer, Council member Jordan Brandman, Fullerton Council member (and Curt Pringle lobbying VP) Jennifer Fitzgerald, along with some City Staff, have equated HUMAN BEINGS in need of help as equivalent to a trash sorting facility to be placed on the outskirts of town.

industrial trash

We have ELECTED OFFICIALS aided by staff working on public funding, who are perfectly OK saying that it is acceptable to treat “those people” differently based entirely on economic status.

This video is typical of what happens every day in communities across Orange County, Is this the official policy we want put in place for our city?

No, you cannot even BE here among us.

Voice of OC reports:

Located in a light industrial section of North Anaheim, the site is far from any residential neighborhood and is actually located near a strip club, Spitzer said at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, alluding to the fact that other locations have been shot down due to their proximity to schools.

“If you can’t put this shelter a half a block from an all-nude strip club…in an all-commercial area…not near any homes, not near any schools, completely separated from residences by the 91 freeway and the Santa Ana River, then you probably can’t build it anywhere,” Spitzer said.

“I really think it might be ideal,” Spitzer added, urging his colleagues to support negotiations for the property, which is located at 1000 N. Kraemer Pl.

We keep predators and sex offenders away from homes, schools, churches. Is Spitzer making the unspoken claim that homeless people by definition are predators we must protect our homes from? There has been no mention of housing predators, or running a halfway house for “rehabilitated” sex offenders. The discussion on the table is housing the homeless. Since when do we assume that an entire population of American citizens is guilty of predatory behavior based solely on economic status? I hope Mr. Spitzer can hear me THROWING BREAKABLE OBJECTS IN FURY here at my home as I type this.

Todd Spitzer, as the self-proclaimed victims’ rights advocate, KNOWS that the shelter may not offer services to predators if it is within certain distance from homes, schools, churches, etc. Thus the most reliable system for ensuring that the shelter offers services to those poor souls who have fallen through the cracks of the system and need a hand, while keeping out, by a screening process, those most likely to do harm to others (and those LEAST LIKELY to show up for a shelter program where their identity will be confirmed) is to locate the shelter well within the zone that disallows the presence of predators, BY STATE LAW. In fact, by locating a shelter where Spitzer is pushing for one, we guarantee that Anaheim becomes the location where “hard to serve” populations will be shuttled, while the warm fuzzy shelters for families, butterflies, and puppies gets built in areas like Spitzer’s home town.

Nobody is pushing to serve predators, and the location selected by Anaheim would specifically prevent predators from receiving services, then we are not really protecting central Anaheim’s residents from the impacts of sex offenders and scumbags. And while Anaheim has failed miserably in providing information to their residents, the numerous studies conducted over many years of tracking same site data indicate that not only do shelters NOT tank property values, in many cases shelters IMPROVE THEM!


Anaheim tells us our Police department is being trained to help the homeless, and I am sure many of our law enforcement professionals work very hard to do so. But there are SOME on the force who have been videotaped harassing the homeless, simply for being HOMELESS.

They are sitting in parks, minding their own business, not “camping” with a tent, not dropping trash, taking drugs, threatening anyone, and their belongings have been reduced to the equivalent that a young mother might bring to the park as support supplies for her brood of youngsters, with diapers and wipes and juice boxes etc. Yet the young mother is welcomed, the homeless person is hassled by Police, and their belongings TAKEN, at times stripping them of their medically necessary prescriptions, eyeglasses, and the last copy of treasured photos. In many cases these American citizens report never seeing their belongings again.

We have criminalized not only the illegal activities that are sometimes committed by the homeless, (and not homeless) we have criminalized homelessness itself. We have labeled an entire population of Americans as less than human who lack the basic right to even EXIST in our community. This is so prevalent that a County Supervisor wishes to move the population to an industrial park as though a homeless shelter is nothing more than a trash sorting facility!

Criminalizing the Homeless Community

There is a documented relationship between the appearance of criminalization of homelessness laws, and the increase of hate crimes or violent acts against homeless people. In order to prove this, Florida and California will be used as case studies. Historically, many cities in these two states have enacted severe anti-camping, anti-panhandling, and anti-food sharing laws, as well as other regulations that criminalize activities related with homelessness.

(You mean like Anaheim?)

A high number of cities that were mentioned in NCH’s periodic criminalization of homelessness reports, also have some of the most elevated numbers of incidents of hate crimes against homeless people. In fact, four of the ten meanest cities identified in ‘Homes Not Handcuffs’ were located in Florida and three were in California.3 The legislative scenario constitutes one of the factors that explains why these two states hold the highest amounts of bias-motivated crimes against homeless individuals, far surpassing their closest competitors.

One possible explanation for this is the message that criminalizing homelessness sends to the general public: “Homeless people do not matter and are not worthy of living in our city.” This message is blatant in the attitudes many cities have toward homeless people and can be used as an internal justification for attacking someone. 3 The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. July 2009.

While we assume that all homeless are criminals seeking to victimize innocent homeowners, in actuality the crimes are committed AGAINST the homeless. 30% of those crimes committed were reported in California.

“Profile of Accused and Convicted Perpetrators”

In contrast to the victims, perpetrators of hate crimes against homeless individuals have been overwhelmingly young men, with the attacker being male 93 percent of the time. Additionally, in the past 15 years, 82 percent of the perpetrators were under the age of thirty. In 2013, 48 percent of the perpetrators were under the age of 20, the youngest being 13-years old, and 37 percent were between the ages of 20-and 29-years-old. With 85 percent of the perpetrators being under 30-years-old, it is clear that the perpetrators are continuing to act at young ages.”

Any concern for placing a shelter too close to residential neighborhoods should rightly be a fear of the homeless being too close to the teen and young adult males living in those homes who appear to commit the overwhelming majority of violence against their fellow human beings, whose only fault is to not have a house key dangling from a key chain.


You mean like CalTrans running around punching holes in pavement to justify spending money on road repair? Uh…

If we someday manage to “cure” homelessness, will County staff protect their job security by making more people homeless? And if there are still homeless to serve, then there would still be a need for a program…kind of like repaving the streets we paved a few decades ago. Yes it is a never-ending battle but it is the cost of living in a civilized society. This becomes less likely to become the monolith of dysfunction if, as I believe is planned for this transitional shelter, the County contracts out to a non-profit rather than running it themselves. No I don’t want the folks who brought us Cal-Optima and the IT contracts to be in charge of someone’s need for a roof.

For a time Fullerton PD was dropping homeless folk off at La Palma Park, and this lasted as long as it took for Anaheim’s Chief to presumably explain to Fullerton’s Chief where his perfectly polished Size 12 military style boot was going to be placed should this continue. No, we will not become a dumping ground for the homeless.


I need to share that I was told by a City staff department head prior to the media’s reporting that the shelter planned for the Karcher property would be moved to Kraemer Place. This department head saw nothing wrong with telling me that the plan was put forward by none other than Jordan Brandman, and would be on the April 7 agenda. This did not match reports from the Register and Voice of OC that claimed that Fullerton’s Jennifer Fitzgerald brought this issue forward to the County, and Todd Spitzer is championing the change in venue.

Of course Jordan Brandman is supposed to be subject to the same restrictions that his own actions placed upon Mayor Tom Tait on September 30, 2013, specifically that agenda items may only be placed on upcoming meeting schedules during Council Communications portions of public meetings.

This department head was not in any way attempting to hide from me, with full knowledge of who I am, that they had taken orders from Jordan Brandman for agenda items between meetings, as though this is usual and customary at City Hall.  When we address Kris Murray “Taxpayer Disenfranchisement Act” we can also examine HER statement thanking City Attorney Houston for his “months” of work on something Murray only brought to the Council for recent discussion.

I can only hope that Mayor Tait takes the time to point blank ask staff how his colleagues demand items be placed on upcoming agendas between meetings, or expend staff time based on one single Council member’s personal preferences, when the Mayor who chairs the meetings may not be granted such a privilege.

And because we have this perfect storm of Jordan Brandman ordering City department heads to agendize an issue between meetings, aided by Jennifer Fitzgerald (Fullerton City Council AND VP at Curt Pringle and Associates, conveniently failing to identify which hat she is wearing today) and Todd Spitzer is heading the entire scheme, it is understandable that I am skeptical about any claims of public benefit, and instead rather believe that someone is making a buck behind the scenes, to the harm of the homeless now forced to wait while we screw around with yet another reset button. Am I paranoid? If it lobbies like a duck…



“… and though the County believes there is legal authority to establish an emergency shelter on any property it owns within the County, the County desires to work in a collaborative fashion and receive the support of local jurisdictions;”

Is that staff-speak for, “Todd says play nice and work with us or we are going to shove this thing down Anaheim’s gullet?” Well thankfully we have Resolution 2013-188 proposed by Council member Kris Murray on December 17, 2013:

December 17, 2013

Greg Garcia Deputy City Manager reported this resolution was to make clear to both the public as well as to government agencies that should there be a plan to acquire develop or dispose of property in Anaheim such plan must comply with the city s planning and zoning requirements particularly where the proposed use would result in environmental impacts in the city and use designations.

“…if a special district or other government agency seeks to lease, sell, or develop property within Anaheim’s city limits, then the special district or other government agency should be subject to the City’s planning process to ensure orderly and consistent development with the surrounding community and uses, to the extent permitted by law”

Well thank goodness Murray passed that Resolution during the “stop the power plant” crisis, I am sure she will be as forceful with Mr. Spitzer Tuesday night as she was with the OCWD. And if she isn’t then Jordan will have to get staff to put something on the next Agenda.

About Cynthia Ward

I am a truth-teller. It gets me in trouble. But if you ask me if a dress makes you look fat, I will tell you so, and help select another, before you go on television and realize it for yourself. My real friends are expected to be truthful with me as well. A secret shared will be taken to my grave, but lie to me, and it will end up here…on these pages… especially if you are tasked with the stewardship of public resources. I am a registered Republican who disdains the local GOP power structure, a born-again Christian who supports everyone’s right to spend their lives with the partner of their choosing. I am a wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister. I am a loyal friend to those who merit that friendship and when crossed I am a bitch with a capital C. I do not fit into a box, nor do I see others through the stereotypes that politics and public affairs so often tries to shoehorn us into. I think for myself, and so do you. Welcome to our shared space in this world.