At one time, witchcraft was “ubiquitous,” and played a part in every activity of one’s life. If blight seized the groundnut crop, it was witchcraft; if the bush was vainly scoured for game, it was witchcraft; if women laboriously bale water out of a pool and were rewarded by but a few small fish, it was witchcraft;…if a prince was cold and distant with his subject, it was witchcraft;…if, in fact, any failure or misfortune fell upon anyone at any time and in relation to any of the manifold activities of one’s life, it might have be due to witchcraft. Witchcraft was foremost a way of making what happened in people’s lives intelligible in the fullest sense, of explaining what lay behind such misfortunes as poor harvest and sickness. Narratives proliferate in the spaces between what is known and what is not, especially in the spaces where life and knowledge are the most fragile. Illness is mysterious. It comes without warning, and its sources are often hidden. By explaining death or illness or bad luck, witchcraft acts as a form of theodicy, a way of understanding why bad things—like granaries collapsing—happen when they do, and to whom. Sadism, as it is often used, can be relatively free from destructiveness and blended with a friendly attitude towards it object. This kind of “loving” sadism has found classical expression in Balzac’s Lost Illusions, a description which also conveys the particular quality of what we mean by the need for symbiosis. In this passage Balzac describes the relationship between young Lucien and the Bango prisoner who poses as an Abbe. Shortly after he makes the acquaintance of the young man who has just tried to commit suicide the Abbe says: “…This young man has nothing in common with the poet who died just now. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

 “I have picked you up, I have given life to you, and you belong to me as the creature belongs to the creator, as-in the Orient’s fairy tales—the Ifrit belongs to the spirit, as the body belongs to the soul. With powerful hands I will keep you straight on the road to power; I promise you, nevertheless, a life of pleasures, of honours, of everlasting feasts. You will never lack money, you will sparkle, you will be brilliant; whereas I, stopped down in the filth of promoting, shall secure the brilliant edifice of your success. I love your power for the sake of power! I shall always enjoy your pleasures although I shall have to renounce them. Shortly: I shall be one and the same person with you…I will love my creature, I will mold him, will shape him to my services, in order to love him as a father loves his child. I shall drive at your side in your Tilbury, my dear boy, I shall delight in your successes with women. I have created this Marquis de Rubempre and have placed him among the aristocracy; his success is my product. He is silent and he talks with my voice, he follows my advice in everything.” Frequently, and not only in the popular usage, sado-masochism is confounded with love. Masochistic phenomena, especially, are looked upon as expressions of love. An attitude of complete self-denial for the sake of another person and the surrender of one’s own rights and claims to another person have been praised as examples of “great love.” It seems that there is no better proof for “love” than sacrifice and the readiness to give oneself up for the sake of the beloved person. Actually, in these cases, “love” is essentially a masochistic yearning and rooted in the symbiotic need of the person involved. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

If we mean by love the passionate affirmation and active relatedness to the essence of a particular person, if we mean by it the union with another person on the basis of the independence and integrity of the two persons involved, then masochism and love are opposites. Love is based on subordination and loss of integrity of one partner, it is masochistic dependence, regardless of how the relationship is rationalized. Sadism also appears frequently under the disguise of love. To rule over another person, if one can claim that to rule him is for that person’s own sake, frequently appears as an expression of love, but the essential factor is the enjoyment of domination. Many are probably wondering: Is not sadism, as we have described it here, identical with the craving for power? Although the more destructive forms of sadism, in which the aim is to hurt and torture another person, are not identical with the wish for power, the latter is the most significant expression of sadism. The problem has gained added significance in the present day. Since Mr. Hobbes, one has seen in power the basic motive of human behaviour; the following centuries, however, gave increased weight to legal and moral factors which tended to curb power. With the rise of Fascism, the lust for power and the conviction of its right has reached new height. Millions are impressed by the victories of power and take it for the sigh of strength. To be sure, power over people is an expression of superior strength in a purely material sense. If I have the power over another person to kill him, I am “stronger” than he is. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

However, in a psychological sense, the lust for power is not rooted in strength but in weakness. It is the expression of the inability of the individual self to stand alone and live. It is the desperate attempt to gain secondary strength where genuine strength is lacking. The word “power” has a twofold meaning One is the possession of power over somebody, the ability to dominate one; the other meaning is the possession of power to do something, to be able, to be potent. The latter meaning has nothing to do with domination; it expresses mastery in the sense of ability. If we speak of powerlessness, we have this meaning in mind; we do not think of a person who is not able to dominate others, but of a person who is not able to do what one wants. Thus power can on one of two things, domination or potency. Far from being identical, these two qualities are mutually exclusive. Impotence, using the term not only with regard to the sphere of pleasures of the flesh, but to all spheres of human potentialities, results in the sadistic striving for domination; to the extent to which an individual is potent, that is, able to realize one’s potentialities on the basis of freedom and integrity of one self, one does not need to dominate and is lacking the lust for power. Power, in the sense of domination, is the perversion of potency just as sexual sadism is the perversion of sexual love. Sadistic and masochistic traits are probably to be found in everybody. At one extreme there are individuals whose whole personality is dominated by these traits, and at the other there are those for whom these sado-masochistic traits are not characteristic. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Only in discussing the former can we speak of a sado-masochistic character. The term “character” is used here in the dynamic sense in which Dr. Freud speaks of character. In this sense it refers not to the sum total of behavior patterns characteristic for one person, but to the dominant drives that motivate behaviour. Since Dr. Freud assumed that the basic motivating forces are sexual ones, he arrived at concepts like “oral,” “anal,” or “genital” characters. If one does not share this assumption, one is forced to devise different character types. However, the dynamic concept remains the same. The driving forces are not necessarily conscious as such to a person whose character is dominated by them. A person can be entirely dominated by one’s sadistic strivings and consciously believe that one is motivated only by one’s sense of duty. One may not even commit any overt sadistic acts but suppress one’s sadistic drives sufficiently to make one appear on the surface as a person who is not sadistic. Nevertheless, any close analysis of one’s behaviour, one’s phantasies, dreams, and gestures, would show the sadistic impulses operating in deeper layers of one’s personality. Although the character of persons in whom sadomasochistic drives are dominant can be characterized as sado-masochistic, such persons are not necessarily neurotic. It depends to a large extent on the particular tasks people have to fulfill in their social situation and what patterns of feelings and behaviour are present in their culture whether or not a particular kind of character structure is “neurotic” or “normal.” As a matter of fact, for great parts of the lower middle class in Germany and other European countries, the sado-masochistic character is typical, and, it is this kind of character structure to which Nazi ideology had its strongest appeal. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

A reason why it is so difficult to dare to disobey, to say “no” to power is because during most of human history obedience has been identified with virtue and disobedience with sin. The reason is simple: thus far throughout most of history a minority has ruled over the majority. This rule was made necessary by the fact that there was only enough of the good things of life for the few, and only the crumbs remained for the many. If the few wanted to enjoy the good things and, beyond that, to have the many serve them and work for them, one condition was necessary: the many had to learn obedience. To be sure, obedience can be established by sheer force. However, this method has many disadvantages. It constitutes a constant threat that one day the many might have the means to overthrow the few by force; furthermore there are many kinds of work which cannot be done properly if nothing but fear is behind the obedience. Hence the obedience which is only rooted in the fear of force must be transformed into one rooted in humans’ hearts. Humans want and even need to obey, instead of only fearing to disobey. If this is to be achieved, power must assume the qualities of the All Good, the All Wise; it must become All Knowing. If this happens, power can proclaim that disobedience is sin and obedience virtue; and once this has been proclaimed, the many can accept obedience because it is good and detest disobedience because it is bd, rather than to detest themselves for being cowards. From Mr. Luther to the nineteenth century one was concerned with overt and explicit authorities. Mr. Luther, the pope, the princes, wanted to uphold it; the middle class, the workers, the philosopher, tried to uproot it. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

The fight against authority in the State as well as in the family was often the very basis for the development of an independent and daring person. The fight against authority was inseparable from the intellectual mood which characterized the philosophers of the enlightenment and the scientists. This “critical mood” was one of the faith in reason, and at the same time of doubt in everything which is said or thought, inasmuch as it is based on tradition, superstition, custom, power. The principles sapere aude and de omnibus est dubitandum—“dare to be wise” and “of all one must doubt”—were characteristic of the attitude which permitted and furthered the capacity to say “no.” The case of Adolf Eichmann is symbolic of our situation and has a significance far beyond the one which his accusers in the courtroom in Jerusalem were concerned with. Mr. Eichmann is a symbol of the organization man, of the alienated bureaucrat for whom men, women, and children have become numbers. He is a symbol of all of us. We can see ourselves in Mr. Eichmann. However, the most frightening thing about hi is that after the entire story was told in terms of his own admission, he was able in perfect good faith to plead his innocence. It is clear that if he were once more in the same situation, he would do it again. And so would we—and so do we. The organization man has lost the capacity to disobey, he is not even aware of the fact that he obeys. At this point in history the capacity to doubt, to criticize and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for humankind and the end of civilization. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

The Soviet system is a mythical entity to most Americans; probably not any less mythical than the capitalist system is to most Russians. While the Russians see capitalism as a system of exploited wage salves obeying the whip of Wall Street bosses, Americans see Russia as led by men who are a blend of Mr. Lenin and Mr. Hitler, bent on subjugating the rest of the World by force or trickery. Since our whole foreign policy is based on the idea that the Soviet Union wants to conquer the World by force, it is of the utmost importance to examine the facts and to have a clear and realistic picture of the nature of the Soviet system. This task is all the more difficult because the nature of the Soviet system changed completely between 1917 and the present time. It changed from a revolutionary system, considering itself the center and the promotor of Communist revolutions in Europe and eventually throughout the whole World, to a conservative, industrial class society run along lines in many respects similar to the development of the “capitalistic” states of the West. This change, however, was never marked by any official break in the continuity, because many basic features such as the nationalization of means of production and the idea of a planned economy have remained the same. However, much more confusing than the continuity of certain economic patterns is the continuity of the ideology. Mr. Stalin and then Mr. Khrushchev had religiously stuck to the “Marxist-Leninist” formulations, and continued to speak the language of 1848 or 1917, although representing a system which is the very opposite of what revolutionaries like Mr. Marx and Mr. Lenin envisaged. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Actually we should be better able to recognize the difference between ritualized ideological formulae and realities. Are we not ourselves caught in a similar discrepancy when we talk of “individual initiative” in a society of the “organization man,” or of a “God-fearing society” when in reality we care mainly about money, comfort, health and education, and very little about God? However—and this makes the recognition of reality all the more confusing—neither the Russians nor are we liars. Both sides are convinced that they are telling the truth, and they approach each other with the common conviction that their own and, even to some extent, their opponent’s ideologies represent realities. Since Mr. Stalin’s ascendancy the Soviet rulers have never aimed at Communist revolution in the West but have used the Communist parties only as instruments for the support of the Soviet foreign policy. The middle of the nineteenth century was a time of socialist hope; this was based on the miraculous progress of science and its effect on industrial production, on the success of the middle-class revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, on the mounting protests of the workers, and on the spread of socialist ideas. Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels, like many other socialists, were convinced that the time was near in which the great revolution would occur and that shortly a new epoch in human history would begin, that there was every prospect, as Mr. Engles put it, “of turning the revolution of the minority” [as were all previous revolutions] “into a revolution of the majority” [as he visualized the socialist revolution]. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

However, at the end of the century Mr. Engels had to admit: “History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development of the continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production.” The First World War marked a decisive change in the history of socialism. It marked the collapse of two of its most significant aims, internationalism and peace. With the beginning of the war, each socialist party took the side of its own government and fought the other socialists in the name of “freedom.” This moral debacle of socialism was not so much due to the personal betrayal of some leaders as to the change in general economic and political conditions. The naked and ruthless exploitation of the workers which had existed in the nineteenth century had slowly given way to the participation of the working class in the economic gains of their respective countries. Capitalism, instead of being unable to function because of its own inner contradictions, as Mr. Marx had predicted, proved to be a going concern, much more capable of coping with crises and difficulties than the radical revolutionaries had expected. The very success of capitalism led to a new interpretation of socialism. While Mr. Marx’s and Mr. Engles vision was that of a new form of society transcending that of capitalism, a society which would be the full realization of humanism and individualism, socialism began now to be interpreted by most of its adherents as a movement for the economic and political rise of the working class within the capitalist system. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

While Mr. Marxist socialism in the nineteenth century was the most significant spiritual and moral movement of the century, antipositivistic and antimaterialistic in essence, it was slowly transformed into a purely political movement with essentially economic aims even though the older moral goals never entirely disappeared. The interpretation of socialism in terms of the categories of capitalism led to a new policy for the socialist parties, the aim of which was the welfare state rather than the fulfillment of the messianic hopes held by the founders of socialism. The war of 1914, that senseless slaughter of millions of people f all nations for the sake of certain economic advantages, led to the resurgence, in a new and vital form, of the older socialist attitude against war and nationalism. Radical socialists in all countries felt a profound indignation at the war, and they became the leaders of revolutionary movements in Russian, Germany, and France. In fact, the radicalization of the socialist movement was closely connected with the Zimmerwald movement, the attempt of internationalist socialists to end the war. The February revolution in Russia gave impetus to these revolutionary leaders. Originally Mr. Lenin, in accordance with Mr. Marx’s theory, had believed that a socialist revolution could be successful only within a highly developed, capitalist economy like Germany. He had thought it necessary that a less-developed country like Russia had to complete its bourgeois revolution before moving forward to a socialist revolution. For the same reason the majority of the Communist Central Committee was at first opposed to the seizure of power in 1917, but increasing protest of the peasant-soldier against the war coupled with the incapacity of the Czarist government and its revolutionary successor to end the war and reorganize the Russian economy pushed Mr. Lenin into the October revolution. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Mr. Lenin’s and Mr. Trotsky’s hopes were fastened on a German revolution, which both were sure would happen in a short while. They signed the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Imperial Germany in the expectation that the German revolution would soon break out and invalidate the peace treaty. If a highly industrial Germany became a Soviet state and fused with mainly agricultural Russian, then, so they reasoned following Marxist theory, a socialist, German-Russian Soviet system would have a good chance to survive and to flourish. Like Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels in the middle of the nineteenth century, Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky seventy years later believed for a short while that the socialist “kingdom is near,” and that they would lay the foundations for a truly socialist society. Mr. Lenin’s hope had its peaks and its valleys; 1917 and 1918 represented the first peak. Ten days after the October revolution he declared: “We shall march firmly and unswervingly to the victory of socialism which will be sealed by the leading workers of the most civilized countries and give to the people solid peace and deliverance from all oppression and all exploitation. When after the outbreak of the German revolution in November 1918, the new German government showed great reluctance to enter into diplomatic relations with Russian and when the German workers did not seem to follow the Russian example, doubts began to enter Mr. Lenin’s and Mr. Trotsky’s minds. In 1919 the Soviet revolution in Bavaria and Hungary gave rise to new hopes, only to be dashed shortly by the defeat of these revolutions. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The summer and fall of 1920, when the Russian civil war was moving toward its end and the Red Army stood at the gates of Warsaw, witnessed the peak of the prestige of the Comintern and of the Communists hopes for World revolution. The second Congress of the Comintern, 1920, was held in a mood of high revolutionary enthusiasm. Yet, only a short time after, with the defeat of the Red Army before Warsaw and the failure of the Polish workers to rise, everything changed dramatically. The revolutionary hopes received a shock from which they never recovered. Mr. Lenin, in ordering the march on Warsaw, after the successful defense against the Polish attack, had yielded to his frantic hope for the World revolution, this time being less realistic than Mr. Trotsky, who (with Mr. Tukhachevski) had advised against the Warsaw offensive. Once more history proved that the revolutionaries had been wrong in their estimates of the revolutionary possibilities. Mr. Lenin recognized the defeat; he admitted that Western capitalism still had a much greater vitality than he had expected and he initiated and organized the retreat in order to save what could be saved from the debacle. He started the NEP, the reintroduction of capitalism in large sectors of the Russian economy, he tried to persuade foreign capitalists to invest capital in “concessions” with the Soviet Union, he tried to arrive at a peaceful understanding with the great Western powers, and at the same time, he suppressed by force the movement of the Kronstadt sailors, directed against what they felt to be the betrayal of the revolution. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

Mr. Lenin’s concept that the true interest of the working class resided in an elite of leaders, and not in the majority of workers, was not Mr. Marx’s; in fact, it was opposed by Mr. Trotsky during the many years of difference between him and Mr. Lenin before the outbreak of the First World War as it was opposed by Rosa Luxemburg, the most unwavering and clearsighted of Marxist revolutionary leaders until her assassination by German soldiers in 1919. Mr. Lenin did not see what Rosa Luxemburg and many others saw, that the centralized bureaucratic system in which an elite ruled for the workers had to end up in a system in which it would rule over the workers and extinguish whatever was left of socialism in Russia. However, whatever the differences between Mr. Marx and Mr. Lenin were, the fact is that for the second time the great hope had failed. This time however, the failure found Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky in power, confronted with the historical dilemma of how to guide a socialist revolution in a country that did not have the objective conditions for a socialist society. They were spared the problem of having to solve this dilemma. Mr. Lenin, after a first stroke in 1922, which incapacitated him increasingly, died in January 1924; Mr. Trotsky was driven from power a few years later; Mr. Stalin, with whom Mr. Lenin had broken off all personal relations in the last months before his death, took over. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Mr. Lenin’s death and Mr. Trotsky’s defeat only underscored the end of the period of revolutionary movements all over Europe and of hopes for a new socialist order. After 1919 the revolution was on the retreat, and by 1923, there was no longer any doubt about its failure. After all the expedient modifications and political concessions, the plan of action which has been adopted as a policy may be much like the original proposal or it may resemble it only very slightly. In either case, what has been adopted is a broad and general set of goals plus an indication of ways and means such as budget, personnel, schedule, which are to be made available for achieving them. There has been a steady evolution from embryonic intention to definite commitment, but even by the end of the third phase of planning, only the broader outlies of the program can be discerned. There is a considerable remaining margin for policy-formulation by the executives or administrators of the agency itself. Even their own status and powers are in part subject to their own definition. Utilizing this margin for initiative which has been left to them, many executives of agencies have distinguished themselves as leaders in conducting their programs. In order to lead successfully, they have to be responsive to their publics and to the policy -making bodies to which they are responsible, yet they prefer those programs which quite decisively state their responsibilities without spelling out in too great detail how they should be performed. Experienced policy-making bodies have realized that just how a policy will work out in practice can be predicted only to a limited extent, due to changing conditions and adjustment of estimates, so that it is best not to weigh an administrator down with too many rigid rules, rather letting these develop from experience. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

It is better to outline the task and hold the administrator accountable for its performance than to bind one’s hands and hamper the initiative and morale of one’s agency through imposing rules, which may in the end seem more important than the success of the program. In most economic transactions, the player on the two sides are different in many respects. Buyers on one side and sellers on the other is the most usual distinction. The magnitude of the temptation to cheat, and the future consequences of such cheating, differ greatly for the two. For example, firms that produce durable consumer goods are usually in the market for a long time, and their reputation for good or poor quality can be spread by the media, but their consumers may be in the market only infrequently, and may be tempted to backout on payment unless the firms have a good network for exchanging information. Public information –the model of the test ignored any avenues of information dissemination other than the services provided by the intermediary. In practice some public information about traders’ behavior is available, and it is of interest to examine the interaction between such information and the intermediary’s service. Behaviour types—in the model of the text, all traders were identical and rational maximizers. Then in the equilibrium there was no cheating. Many applied models of repeated games have the same structure, but it is neither a good representation of reality, nor is it theoretically satisfactory. In reality there are some innately honest people, and some who are either innately dishonest or so short-lived that future consequence of cheating are not relevant for them. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

Theoretically, we saw how the interpretation of deviation from equilibrium strategies becomes problematic when the deviant strategies are never played by anyone on the equilibrium path. Drawing the line between how far the policy-making body should go in spelling out details of the program and how much prerogative should be left to executive discretion is a matter of judgment and circumstance. Apart from the need to maintain the supremacy of the policy-making body, and the loyalty and morale of the personnel of the action agency, it is best to rely on ensuing experience rather than any general principles. Perhaps the one general statement that can be made about the proper organizational structure for executing a program of planned action is this corollary of our consistent emphasis on the sharing of purpose as the compass for procedure: Administrative structure is best which, given the problem, resources, and policy determinations binding an agency, maximizes the participation of its personnel and its clientele in the execution of the program. Participation here is viewed in least two senses, first, participation in further development of policy, and second, personal involvement in the goals of the program, leading to maximum effort and ingenuity in contributing to its success. The best test of participation in the program by the personnel of the agency is the degree to which each rank is consulted on the setting of quotas and schedules for its functional unit of the operation. It is precisely here that the two senses of participation, the matter of “voice” and the matter of motivation, will ideally merge. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

Life in the Spiritual Community is unambiguous life. Religion, culture, and morality, essentially untied but existentially disrupted, are reunited by the Spiritual Presence. Consequently, religion in the narrow sense has no place in the Spiritual Community. Religion in the broad sense of faith animates every cultural creation at its depths: There are no religious symbols in the Spiritual Community because the encountered reality is in its totality symbolic of the Spiritual Presence, and there are no religious acts because every act is an act of self-transcendence. Thus, the essential relation between religion and culture—that culture is the form of religion, and religion the substance of culture—is realized in the Spiritual Community. Although the Spiritual Community unambiguously fulfills the biblical vision of the holy city without a temple, nevertheless, the fulfillment is not ultimate. It is fragmentary and anticipatory because of the temporal-spatial process of its realization. The Spiritual Community is as manifest and s hidden as the New Being in Jesus as the Christ. It is manifest to the Spirit and hidden to all but the Spirit. It is open only to faith as the state of being grasped by the Spiritual Presence. As we have said before: Only Spirit discerns Spirit. But the believer thus cooperating with God in the use of one’s volition must understand that the choice of the will is not sufficient alone. To will is present, but to do is not. Through the spirit, and by the strengthening of the Holy Spirit the soul is liberated will—desiring and determined to do God’s will—empowered to carry out its choice. It is God which works within you…to will, id est, to enable the believer to decide or choose. Then it is God which works in you…to do His good pleasure. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

God energizes the believer with power to carry out the choice. In short, God gives the power to do—acting from the spirit where He dwells. However, the believer needs to understand the use of one’s spirit as clearly as one understands the use of one’s will, of one’s mind, or of one’s body. One must know how to discern the sense of one’s spirit so as to understand the will of God, before one can do it. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All. God has given humans understanding and insight, and has shown them what is good and what is evil. God has revealed unto one what is good; He has given one to choose between right and wrong. God has given one a mind, that one might use one’s blessings wisely; a heart has God given one, and free will, that one might consider one’s ways, and live accordingly to God’s will. We are mindful of all the great gifts which God, O Lord, has given us; may we use them wisely that they may not be in vain. We have been told, O man and woman, what is good, and what the Lord requires of us: to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously, a man against his brother? Justice, justice, shall you pursue, that you may live in your land. And be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Department, they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s

Now Selling!

Models now open at Magnolia Station! Located at the corner of Rancho Cordova Parkway and Douglas Road, residents of Cresleigh Ranch will benefit from a brand new neighborhood with convenient access to the new Raley’s Shopping Center, Sunrise Boulevard, and much more!

Magnolia Station will  include 81 homesites  and five distinct plans ranging from 2,200 – 3,700 square feet; including three single story plans! Each plan has been thoughtfully designed to include features such as: Generations Suite, Optional Offices/Dens, Extended Great Rooms, and more! https://cresleigh.com/magnolia-station/

#CresleighHomes