Some people are still nice and happy. Happiness is a mental or emotional state of wellbeing characterized by optimistic or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy. Media and advertising are selling happiness as a utopian experience. And more and more people interpret it as bliss. The popular misconception is that happiness is looking gorgeous, laughing all day long, coming by the way driving fancy cars, et cetera. However, bliss is a rare out-of-body moment and not a routine. Consider it as a beautiful vacation, but no matter how amazing the holiday is, one must return home because home is a constant anchor in our lives. We learn how to navigate through every other complex emotion by our state of being. If we re not in the best of space, we will end up making decisions that will further prolong a state of being to an unexpected duration. Most people gauge their happiness with the barometer of their feeling. If it is sadness, they feel they would make efforts to feel better. Feelings are tools to carve a state of mind. There are many actions that fluctuate the state of being we are in, particularly that of happiness. Drawing a sense of comparison with others, overthinking about the past, allowing situations to get the better of oneself are some of the factors that tend to make us happy. Happiness, as a state of mind, is cultivated over time. It is something that can be practiced with time and strengthened like a muscle; the effort is not to find it so much but rather to maintain a state of mind. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

When we tend to outsource our happiness or hyperlink it to circumstances externally, we heavily rely upon the success of those scenarios to achieve happiness as a goal. It is only then happiness gets mistaken to be a by-product of situations rather than an ingredient in the action to be executed. We anticipate its arrival and chase it with all our might. Happiness is not determined by what is happening around you but rather by what is happening inside of you. Most people depend on others to gain happiness, but the truth is, it always comes from within. Happiness means different things to various people, but we think it is a state of wellbeing and contentment. Happy people, too, can be sad or disappointed, but they do not let it hamper their long-term mood. Happy individuals are more likely than their less happy peers to have fulfilling marriages, and relationships, high incomes, superior work performance, community involvement, robust health, and even a long life. Happy and unhappy people generally have the same number of adverse events in their lives. It is their interpretation or approach toward tragic events where the major difference lies. Optimistic people try to negotiate an action plan to equilibrize negative situations in their lives, whereas, on the other hand, pessimists are more likely to complain about circumstances and then step into the quicksand of negativity or cynicism, perhaps even depression. In many ways, our hope is our knowledge. A doctor with a highly coveted medical degree, not believing that he will be able to treat his patients, will end up not using his knowledge to his advantage. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

Similarly, if he is not definite about being able to sell the products or fearing it will not rain, a farmer will not sow seeds at the beginning of his agricultural season. Optimism and pessimism are evaluative styles of reacting to life events that determine a positive vs. negative mood and all-embracing or all-excluding behaviour. Individuals with optimistic explanations of life try to look for the good in the bad; they generally feel happier and more equipped to handle challenges and do not self-label themselves as failures as the advent of every setback. Optimists tend to analyse how much of the situational they could control and how much was beyond their grip. Optimism is a form of positive thinking, allowing our interactions to have a positive spin resulting in better health, longer lives, long-lasting relationships, and healthier babies. There is no single great strategy to come with adversities. Most happy people adapt to how they respond to a situation and are ore agile in circumstances that may otherwise lead to emotional gymnastics. There is a lot to be learned from how well we cope with adversities. Human beings can cope pretty well with really bad things. We are finding that people who deal best with adversity are people who have flexible responses. They have multiple coping strategies, which is part of what we think of as mental health. Happy people also accept that adversity allows them to strengthen their coping skills. Without any challenges, one will hardly be able to evaluate one’s response. Therefore, happy people learn from each setback and bounce more resolutely. Over time, they are able to read situations and behave appropriately. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Money along cannot compensate for happiness. It allows one to live comfortably or feel secure. However, it is that all one needs to rise on the happiness metrics? Perhaps not. Out of 4,000 millionaires interviewed said that if you want you and your heirs to be happier, you should give your money away and let them make it on their own. (However, you will notice none of them do this and they continue to squeeze every penny they can get out of consumers.) Money helps procure resources to meet our basic needs, but more money does not always guarantee more happiness. Making money oneself instead of inheriting it resulted in people with peers with equal wealth feeling a bit happier. The pursuit of wealth demands multitasking on other fronts of an individual’s life. It means balancing working overtime with spending time with family, traveling for business trips to hanging out with friends, juggling weekend work mode with pursuing personal hobbies, cutting down on vacations, or lazing around with a high-pressure need to meet deadlines. Apart from the bank account, a person may have a limited circle to share that money with. However, a person not managing their financial foothold well will also crumble under the pressure of paying bills, living hand to mouth, and eventually feeling miserable. The honest answer to the question of whether money can or cannot buy happiness is that every individual is different. Each person makes decisions prioritizing what they need most. As long as our sense of value of life, people around us, and the World overall is not dictated by the currency in our wallet, we shall be able to create a fulfilling life. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

No matter what your personality type is, you can embody happiness. Extrovert find happiness through their external Worlds and feel energized through the social circles they are part of. Introverts, on the other hand, find contentment in their inner Worlds. Going for a walk, sitting by themselves, painting, or reading a book might comfort them in a similar fashion as it does an extrovert in public interaction. Despite the numerous comparisons between whether one is better than the other, what a lot of studies vouch for is that the key factor in happiness amidst both personality types is to accept oneself, create a quality tribe that you can trust and not marinate one’s mind in other people’s way of living. It might work for them, but because there is no formula for happiness, you are free to discover your own route to it. If there are people who are happy permanently, it is debatable. Yet, there definitely exist people who are genuinely satisfied with their lives. There are people who feel good about life more often than others. This regular happiness mode labels them as happy people. There are people who acknowledge the happy people around them and celebrate them for their characteristics. These characteristics, when analysed, show the common thread of similar values, mechanisms, and behaviour traits running across all the people. Happy people exist because they choose to. While there are a million things that spark joy if we allow ourselves the time just to pause and look around, below, we have jotted down a few that we keep going back to, id est, our happiness trail and where to find them. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The expert who is skilled in getting attention, provoking discussion, and dramatizing problems plays an indispensable role in the planning process in an agency, family, or group, and deserves perhaps more honour than one gets, since too often one is treated as one who troubles the sleep of others. Poets and prophets may be indispensable as movers of opinion and intolerable as team mates. The unquestioning assurance with which we habitually assume that everyone knows what is meant by social problem attests that we are dealing here with one of the valid preconceptions of our culture. Yet our and other cultures show that what is problematical to some people is not so to others. In our culture, circumstances such as the condition of the weather and the coming of death are regarded as natural and inevitable concomitants of human existence. They cannot be changed or improved, they are not subject to progress, nothing can be done about them except to submit and adjust to them; they are not problems. The problematical situation is one where it appears that something can be done, something which is defined by the comparison of a better future and a worse present. Thus the concept of problems is closely linked historically and culturally with the idea of progress and the increase of man’s power over nature. To the extent tht the laboratories of General Electric raise hopes of regulating rainfall, the weather will become a problem. Thus, in the most advanced cultures almost any state of affairs can potentially be treated as a problem. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

In considering matter like ill health, it may at first appear that for a state of affairs to be defined as problematic, it must inflict discomfort upon someone. Certainly it is true that many actions carried on by planning bodies are of this order; they are aimed at correcting some deficiency or restoring some status quo ante. It is also true, on the other hand, if they can be said to originate in any form of distress at all,  that many actions of planning bodies originate only in that “divine discontent” created by an awareness of a discrepancy between what is an what might be. For propaganda purposes, it may be an advantage to publish each problem as an evil to be disposed of, rather than a good to be attained. However, it must be noted how in the planning process it is often the unfolding of new possibilities that crates the problem, not the intensification of some threat of pain. Failure to recognize the prospect of continuous, dynamic change leads not to planning but to fire-fighting, not to cumulative advance in power and technique but to stagnant routine. The definition of problems in terms of the progressive setting of new and positive goals is thus one of the major distinctions between the planning and the therapeutic approach to the conduct of family agencies. Also, the therapy, as well as the charity approach, is likely to assume the existence of a natural order. According to this view, problems arise when something goes wrong with the natural order. Some external disturbance is said to interfere with normal functioning, and the problem is assumed solved when the natural order is restored. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

The planning approach, in contrast, denies the assumption of some pre-existent natural order, and construes the social order as the product or construction of purposeful human activity. There is no valid question of whether to plan or not to plan, but only of which plans are good and which plans are bad. The structure of all human organizations—from the smallest to the largest—is taken as the embodiment of certain rules of the game which have been invented or accepted by their participants. Problems from this point of view require some reconstitution of the group to accomplish some change of purpose. From the therapeutic point of view, it is common to speak of “society as the patient.” However, from the planning point of view, all parties affected by the problem are equally patients and therapists, who are engaged not in restoring their constitution but a sacred attitude toward the structure of the social order, the planning approach takes a very secular attitude. Personality likewise becomes problematic when it is viewed as a construction from the elements of experience. The basic assumption of all research on the development of personality is that ultimately something can be done about it, something distinguishable in terms of better and worse. How much can be done, of course, is not ascertainable a prior but only by exploration and experiment. As the reflection of the social order in which it occurs, personality can be no more a “natural order” than the rules of the game which constitute the social order. The identity of Americans is a social problem in 2023. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

We have so far spoken mainly of the anxiety and of the feeling of powerlessness pervading the personality of the member of the middle class. We must now discuss another trait which we have only touched upon very briefly: his hostility and resentment. That the middle class developed intense hostility is not surprising. Anybody who is thwarted in emotional and sensual expression and who is also threatened in his very existence will normally react with hostility; as we have seen, the middle class as a whole and especially those of its members who were not yet enjoying the advantages of rising capitalism were thwarted and seriously threatened. Another factor was to increase their hostility: the luxury and power which the small group of capitalists, including the higher dignitaries of the Church, could afford to display. An intense enby against them was the natural result. However, when hostility and envy developed, the members of the middle class could not find the direct expression which was made possible for the lower classes. These hated the rich who exploited them, they wanted to overthrow their power, and could thus afford to feel and to express their hatred. The upper class also could afford to express aggressiveness directly in the wish for power. The members of the middle class were essentially conservative; they wanted to stabilize society and not uproot it; each of them hoped to become more prosperous and to participate in the general development. Hostility, therefore, was not to be expressed overtly, nor could it even be felt consciously; it had to be repressed. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Repression of hostility, however, only removes it from conscious awareness, it does not abolish it. Moreover, the pent-up hostility, not finding any direct expression, increases to a point where it pervades the whole personality, one’s relationship to others and to oneself—but in rationalized and disguised forms. Mr. Luther and Mr. Calvin portray this all-pervading hostility. Not only in the sense that these two men, personally, belonging to the ranks of the greatest haters among the leading figures of history, certainly among religious leaders; but, which is more important, in the sense that their doctrines were coloured by this hostility and could only appeal to a group itself driven by an intense, repressed hostility. The most striking expression of this hostility is found in their concept of God, especially in Mr. Calvin’s doctrine. Although we are all familiar with this concept, we often do not fully realize what it means to conceive of God as being as arbitrary and merciless as Mr. Calvin’s God, who destined part of mankind to eternal damnation without any justification or reason except that this act was an expression of God’s power. Mr. Calving himself was, of course, concerned with the obvious objections which could be made against this conception of God; but the more or less subtle construction he made to uphold the picture of a just and loving God do not sound in the least convincing. This picture of a despotic God, who wants unrestricted power over men and their submission and humiliation, was the projection of the middle class’s own hostility and envy. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

Hostility or resentment also found expression in the character of relationships to others. The main form which it assumed was moral indignation, which has invariably been characteristic for the lower middle class from Mr. Luther’s time to Mr. Hitler’s. While this class was actually envious of those who had wealth and power and could enjoy life, in terms of moral indignation and in the conviction that these superior people would be punished by eternal suffering. However, the hostile tension against others found expression in still other ways. Mr. Calvin’s regime in Geneva was characterized by suspicion and hostility on the part of everybody against everybody else, and certainly little of the spirit of love and brotherliness could be discovered in his despotic regime. Mr. Calvin distrusted wealth and at the same time had little pity for poverty. In the later development of Calvinism warnings against friendliness towards the stranger, a cruel attitude towards the poor, and a general atmosphere of suspiciousness often appeared. Aside from the projection of hostility and jealousy onto God and their indirect expression in the form of moral indignation, one other way in which hostility found expression was in turning it against oneself. We have seen how ardently both Mr. Luther and Mr. Calvin emphasized the wickedness of man and taught self-humiliation and self-abasement as the basis of all virtue. What they consciously had in mind was certainly nothing but an extreme degree of humility. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

However, to anybody familiar with the psychological mechanisms of self-accusation and self-humiliation there can be no doubt that this kind of “humility” is rooted in a violent hated which, for some reason or other, is blocked from being directed toward the World outside and operates against one’s own self. In order to understand this phenomenon fully, it is necessary to realize that the attitudes toward others and toward oneself, far from being contradictory, in principle run parallel. However, while hostility against others is often conscious and can be expressed overtly, hostility against oneself is usually (except in pathological cases) unconscious, and finds expression in indirect and rationalized forms. One is a person’s active emphasis on his own wickedness and insignificance, of which we have just spoken; another appears under the guise of conscience or duty. Just as there exists humility which has nothing to do with self-hatred, so there exist genuine demands of conscience and a sense of duty which are not rooted in hostility. This genuine conscience forms a part of integrated personality and the following of its demands is an affirmation of the whole self. However, the sense of “duty” as we find it pervading the life of modern man from the period of Reformation up to present in religious or secular rationalization, is intensely coloured by hostility against the self. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

“Conscience” is a slave driver, put into man by himself. It drives him to act according to wishes and aims which he believes to be his own, while they are actually the internalization of external social demands. It drives him with harshness and cruelty, forbidding him pleasure and happiness, making his whole life the atonement for some mysterious sin. It is also the basis of the “inner Worldly asceticism” which is so characteristic in early Calvinism and later Puritanism. The hostility in which this modern kind of humility and sense of duty is rooted explains also one otherwise rather baffling contradiction: that such humility goes together with contempt for others, and that self-righteousness has actually replaced love and mercy. Genuine humility and a genuine sense of duty towards one’s fellow men could not do this; but self-humiliation and self-negating “conscience” are only one side of an hostility, the other side of which is contempt for and hatred against others. The hostility of man against himself is contained in the superego. The superego was originally the internalization of an external and dangerous authority. Unless regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit means sinlessness, and the present possession of a resurrection body, not every part of a believer is yet renewed and freed by the redemption of Calvary from the effects of the Fall. HENCE THERE IS GROUND FOR THE POSSIBLE OPERATION OF DECEIVING SPIRITS. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

 Since absolute sinlessness and the present possession of the resurrection body are not taught in the Scriptures as attainable while on Earth, the chance of deception is logically and reasonably possible—even while the spirit and heart of man is renewed by the Holy Spirit. If we come to facts of experience, the proofs are so abundant as to be beyond our capacity to handle in the limited space of this essay, not only in the unregenerated World but in those who are undoubtedly children of God and spiritual believers. If we knew ourselves and our actual condition as sinners, s depicted in God’s Word, we would be in greater safety from the enemy. It is the ignorance of our true condition even with the new life from God implanted in us, and our blind confidence of safety without an intelligent basis for that assumption, which lays us open to being deceived by Satan through our very certainty of being free from his deception. Since the government and public schools no longer instill patriotism in Americans, it is your jobs as parents to teach your children to be patriotic and to buy American cars. Back in the 1950s, housekeepers would brag about teaching the children they took care of to be the first in the neighbourhood to memorize the pledge of allegiance. However, today’s kids are taught by the TV how to sing theme songs to their favourite cartoons. Let us not forget to remind our children of what an honour it is to live in America and to be an American. “Christology is a function of soteriology.” The Christ who brings the New Being is a unique event which saves the whole of humanity and the whole of the Universe. The task of Christology is to work out the universal significance of this simple and unrepeatable historic fact. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

The New Testament account supplies the concrete details of an individual, personal life, whole the Christological symbols convey the universal significance of the Christ. Thus, myth and symbols are the very language of religion, and to demythologize “would silence the experience of the holy.” Two central Christological symbols reveal the significance of Jesus as the Christ: the Cross, which symbolizes His subjection to existence, and the Resurrection, which symbolized His Victory over it. The Cross and the Resurrection are mutually interdependent, for the triumph of the Resurrection supposes the death on the Cross, and the Cross would have been no different from the death of any other man if the Christ had not risen. Building on this close relationship, we establish the Cross as the paradigm according to which the Resurrection is to be understood. The Cross is both an event and a symbol or, better, a symbol based on an event. As the crucifixion story of Jesus, it enjoys a comparatively high degree of historical probability. As the Cross of Jesus who is the Christ, it is the myth of the bearer of the new eon who suffers the death of a convict and slave under the powers of that old eon which He is to conquer. The Resurrection must be viewed in the same way, as event and symbol, but with this difference, that the New Testament reports of the factual element of the Resurrection are far more mysterious and uncertain than those of the crucifixion. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

The resurrection system was a familiar one in ancient religions, but a real experience made it possible for the disciples to apply the known symbol of resurrection to Jesus, thus acknowledging Him definitely s the Christ. This experienced event brought the certainty that He who is the bringer of the new eon cannot finally have succumbed to the power of the old eon. The physical resurrection of the body of Jesus, holds that the soul of Jesus first appeared to His disciples, which allowed them to communicate with the dead. However, the full resurrection revived the whole personality, body and soul. It was a negativity which was overcome, and this negativity was not the death of one man, but the disappearance of Him in whom the New Being was manifest. By His death he disappeared from the present experience of the disciples. Jesus of Nazareth became indissolubly united with the reality of the New Being. He is present wherever the New Being is present. In this way the concrete individual life of man Jesus of Nazareth is raised above transitoriness into the eternal presence of God as Spirit. The Resurrection is the restitution of Jesus as the Christ, a restitution which is rooted in the personal unity between Jesus and God ad in the impact of this unity on the minds of the apostles. The experience of the New Being in Jesus as the Christ had to come first, but, after the death of Jesus, the disciples’ experience of His living presence restored Him to His Christhood. Faith in the Resurrection of the Christ does not depend upon historical research or theological theories. Certainty can come only from faith, and faith assures us the victory of Jesus the Christ over the conditions of existence. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

Faith is based on the experience of being grasped by the power of the New Being through which the destructive consequences of estrangement are conquered. It is certainty of one’s own victory over the death of existential estrangement which creates the certainty of the Resurrection of the Christ as event and symbol; but it is not historical conviction or the acceptance of biblical authority which creates this certainty. Jesus of Nazareth is the medium of the final revelation because He sacrifices Himself completely to Jesus as the Christ. The Christ possesses perfect unity with God. However, since Jesus of Nazareth is only the bearer of this revelation, He must not point to Himself, but to the ground of being. The Cross says No to Jesus while revealing the Yes of the Christ’s unbroken union with God. In other words, the Cross is the symbol of the Protestant principle. When it comes to the criterion of faith, that symbol is most adequate which expresses not only the ultimate but also its own lack of ultimacy. Jesus could not have been the Christ without sacrificing Himself as Jesus to Himself as the Christ. What is particular in Him (Jesus) is that He Crucified the particular in himself for the sake of the Universal. This liberates His image from bondage both to a particular religion…and to the religious sphere as such. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

With this image, particular yet free from particularity, religious yet free from religion, the criteria are given under which Christianity must judge itself. Moreover, the No of the Cross applies equally to the followers of the Christ: No finite being can attain the infinite without being broken as He who represented the World, and its wisdom and its power, was broken on the Cross. And, finally, of special interest to us, theonomy is based upon the Protestant principle, the Yes and the No of the Cross. For Jesus the Christ overcomes autonomy by His transparency to the ground of being (the Yes), and He resists heteronomy by the humiliation of His death (the No). One who delights in the Lord shall be like a tree planted by streams of waters, that bring forth its fruit in its season, and whose lead does not wither; and whatever one does one shall prosper. Teach me, O Lord, Thy way, that I may walk in Thy truth; make my heart firm to revere Thy name. Open my eyes that I may behold the wonders of Thy Holy Christian Bible. O my way be directed to observe Thy statutes. Guide me in Thy truth, and teach me, for Thou art the God of my salvation. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Teach me to do Thy will, for Thou art my God. Thy teachings ever make for righteousness; give me understanding, and I shall live. The only real poverty is poverty of mind. Reverence for God is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Eternal is true understanding. Where there is no knowledge, there is no reverence for God; where there is no reverence for God, there is no true knowledge. The Book of Mormon and Holy Christian Bible endows man with modesty and reverence. And taches one to be virtuous, pious, upright and faithful. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Expressing the beliefs of his revolutionary generation, it was Mr. Jefferson, once again, who asserted that governments must behave with “absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority.” The United States of America and Europe—still at the dawn of the Second Wave era—were just beginning the long process that would turn them eventually into industrial mass societies. The concept of majority rule perfectly fit the needs of these societies. Our present mass democracy is the political expression of a mass production, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass society. Today, as we have seen, we are leaving industrialism behind and rapidly becoming a de-massified society. In consequence it is growing increasingly difficult—often impossible—to mobilize a majority or even a governing coalition. In the United States of America, I do not see the basis for any positive majority on anything today. In the place of a highly stratified society in which a few major blocs ally themselves to form a majority, we have a configurative society—one in which thousands of minorities, many of them temporary, swirl and form highly novel, transient patterns, seldom coalescing into a consensus of major issues. The advance of Third Wave civilization thus weakens the very legitimacy of many existing governments. The Third Wave also challenges all of our conventional assumptions about the relationships of majority rule to social justice. Throughout the era of Second Wave civilization in fight for majority rule was humane and liberating. In still-industrial countries like Africa today, it remains so. In Second Wave societies, majority rule almost always meant a fairer break for the poor. For the poor were the majority. As an economy expands or as it trade with other countries grows, a point will come when the present value of the social benefits of shifting toward a more rule-based governance will exceed the costs of the required investment. However, the switch need not occur at the optimal point. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

There are many reasons why the political and economic realities will delay the shift. First and foremost, the fixed costs of rule-based governance are a public investment; therefore society must solve a collective-action problem to put such a system in place. This is not automatic; there are the usual problems of free riding, underestimation of the benefits to future generations in today’s political process, and the veto power held by those who stand to lose from the change. Even when public investment for a rule-based system has been made, people used to the relation-based system who want to switch must make some private investments to learn the rules and their operation. Their benefit from the switched will depend on how many others make the switch. This positive feedback externality can lean to too few switchers, or even a lock-in that keeps the old system in use. In turn, the expectation of this can reduce the social benefits of the changeover and therefore delay or deter the initial public investment. The benefits of the new system may be unequally distributed, and some participants may even lose. The reputational capital in the relation-based system is an asset that would become worthless in a pure rule-based system, so incumbents stand to lose from the change and will therefore resists it by political means. They currently successful businesspeople and financiers, who are almost by definition the heaviest users of the existing relation-based system, are also usually active participants in the political process, and adept at marshaling their special interests in an organized way. They can also stall and frustrate a government’s attempts at reform. And it seems like if a Republican wants to take office in California, where 30 percent of residents are poor or near poor, and 12.3 percent are below the poverty line, they will have to focus on policies to help the poor and on family values. The same holds true for the President of America. The middle class is at 50 percent and has consistently been shrinking since a peak of 61 percent in 1971. Currently, 12 percent of Americans are poor. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

CRESLEIGH HOMES HAVENWOOD | HOMESITE 67

Home Site 67 is a Residence Four plan, the largest home offered in Cresleigh Havenwood. This two-story, 3,377 square foot home features four bedrooms, including one suite on the first floor, three and one half bathroom, and a true three-car garage.

The covered porch provided a warm entry and the dining room is located right off the entry way. The Kitchen is connected through the Butler’s Pantry providing ample storage. The great room and loft upstairs allow for various uses that will suit your family and lifestyle.

This home includes over $50,000 in options and upgrades
• Durable luxury vinyl plank flooring throughout the first floor
• Gray Shaker Cabinetry with Soft-Close Doors & Drawers
• Over Island Pendants and Under-Cabinet Lighting
• Gourmet Kitchen option with upgraded appliances
• Stainless Steel Farm Sink and Upgraded Faucet
• Flat Screen Prewire in Great Room
• Owned Solar

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Home Mini! https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/

#CresleighHomes