On 9/8/2022 7:05 PM, Technobarbarian wrote:
On 9/8/2022 5:59 PM, film...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 4:18:18 PM UTC-7, Technobarbarian
wrote:
On 9/8/2022 8:49 AM, George.Anthony wrote:
"Remember those long lines you’d see on the television and people
lining
up in all kinds of vehicles just to get a box of food in their trunk?" >>>> Biden remarked during a speech in Chicago. "How quickly we forget
people
were hurting. And what did the [Make America Great Again] crowd want to >>>> do? Forget it. Forget it."
"God, this is the United States of America," he said. "The idea that
people would have to wait in line an hour or hour and a half to get a
box of food in their trunk — it’s just unbelievable."
- Joe Biden, May 2022
But...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80WBCmdvEvE
- CBS News, August 2022
Of course CC&P and his Oregon peeps are not hurting one bit. Must be
nice to be a selfish, non-caring liberal. If only these people could
save $8.7 mil on their electric bills...
--------------
Liberals fear Donald Trump more than they fear climate change.
Again, I have no idea what you, or your strawman are trying to say?
I have never said there is no suffering here. It's part of the human
condition. The handicapped and poor will always be with us. I expect
that we will always have suffering everywhere.
One of the fun changes in our life time: I can remember when
seriously poor people wore ragged clothes. These days about the only
people you see in ragged clothes are people with a serious mental
problem. Most of those folks dress decently too. It's startling, when
you remember how Portland used to look, to see just about everyone
dressed in nice clothes. Some sort of decent tent and a sleeping bag
seems to be the norm these days too. I can remember when it wasn't that
way, not too long ago. "Suffering" just keeps changing all the time.
What I have said, and proved with charts and graphs and everything
is that in general Americans are amazingly prosperous. We are more
prosperous now than we have ever been in our entire history. Even with
the recession the Federal Reserve has decided to impose on us because
they've decided that we're simply spending too much money, we are likely >>> to remain more prosperous than we were in 2010. Hard times! Woe is us.
If I put up a "free" sign I can give away just about anything that
isn't outright garbage. I once gave away half a toilet.
I can remember back when just about the only people who showed up
at food banks were the truly poor, and low lifes. Many of the poor
people had too much pride. Originally the reason for the Social Security >>> tax was so that people understood it wasn't charity. They were afraid
some people wouldn't take it if they thought it was a charity.
Seriously.
These days the food banks have people who live in nice homes and
drive nice cars, showing up for the free food because they're over
extended and think they're entitled. Waiting in line must be tough
for them.
TB
I agree... Never has there been such a luxurious grade of poverty,
for most of the nation's, "bottom feeders".... One might say, "We are
in the "Golden Age of Poverty".... There is now such a thing as
downtown "hobo jungles", with running water, showers, and maybe even
electricity!
During my feckless youth, when I dabbled in the "Hobo Lifestyle",
there was little sympathy for wanderers, with insufficient funds....
We tried to avoid public scrutiny, whenever possible... Decades
later, when my grandson went "on the bum", he dinned on the bounty
of food banks, and fraternal protection from cops, who years before,
would simply run us out of town, as they would a stray dog!
Joe Hilstrom Jr.
Yeah, I've lived and traveled under a wide variety of circumstances too. Everything from first class air travel to traveling
on my thumb. I've lived in tents, sheds, RVs and a home made motorhome,
but I've never thought of myself as "homeless" or suffering. It's pretty funny talking with jive ass about "suffering" because he doesn't have a
clue and wants to pretend that he gives a shit.
TB
I stumbled on this article this morning. It was nice to see
someone talking about the homeless problem the way I think about it. I
had seriously not seen that before. The politicians all talk about
"shelters" and subsidized housing--all of it with a big dose of
"counseling" and therapy and a huge price tag. Somehow the subsidized apartments end up costing about as much as a couple of nice houses to
build. Everyone is expected to get better and move somewhere else. It's
all extremely utopian and often fascist, because they want to control
people. Some folks think they can make everyone "better", whether they
like or not. <not laughing>
Our Republican lite candidate for governor, wannabe fascist, says,
"We should expect personal responsibility." I can understand why
"responsible" people would want that, but that is an absolutely insane expectation. Humans don't always turn out that way no matter how hard
you try.
So anyhow:
"WE’RE WILDLY UNDERESTIMATING THE POTENTIAL OF MOBILE HOUSING
For about $10,000, you can own it. It can turn parking lots to villages,
then back again. It can go anywhere with you. But our laws almost always
ban the simple home on wheels."
WE’RE WILDLY UNDERESTIMATING THE POTENTIAL OF MOBILE HOUSING
For about $10,000, you can own it. It can turn parking lots to villages,
then back again. It can go anywhere with you. But our laws almost always
ban the simple home on wheels.
Author: Tim McCormick
(@tmccormick) on September 9, 2022 at 12:00 pm
This article is part of the series Legalizing Inexpensive Housing
TAKEAWAYS
Our housing policies rightly respect the need for stability, but they
neglect mobility. In fact, in many ways they ban it.
Homes on wheels can be radically inexpensive. Last year, Portland and
Oakland re-legalized living in them.
The author, who has no permanent home of his own, urges Cascadians not
to neglect them in ongoing housing reforms.
A specter is haunting housing: the specter of mobility.
Mobile dwelling—seasonal, nomadic, occupational, or migratory—has been fairly typical for many people for much of human history. This includes
the people of Cascadia: indigenous peoples, Oregon Trail colonizers, and
waves of migratory workers since.
The United States and Canada have long been among the most mobile and
immigrant of nations, culturally rooted in patterns of colonial and
continental settlement. Yet even here the movable dweller and dwelling
have widely been feared, shunned, marginalized, and zoned out.
At the center of our housing mythology, we’ve enshrined the goal of stability. Offering people stability is usually good, and our housing
systems too often fail to deliver it. But we also fail to offer each
other another option: mobility.
In most of the US, local law prohibits living in a vehicle, except in
certified recreational vehicles in designated RV parks. Exclusionary
zoning laws prohibit even semi-mobile “manufactured housing,” so-called “mobile homes,” in most US cities.
As leaders in Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Montana all
weigh state and provincial housing reforms, a few factors should bring
mobile dwelling back to the forefront of housing policy:
First, in a time of accelerating home prices worldwide, small movable
housing offers high adaptability and low cost: on the scale of $10,000
for construction, thanks to reduced materials, efficient off-site
construction, and the possibility of building it oneself; low energy and maintenance cost, with potential for off-grid operation; and potentially
low land cost due to versatility of where it can be sited.
Secondly, big demographic shifts towards smaller and solo households.
Thirdly, technology advances and adoption allowing many more people to
work from where they choose, and RVs and tiny houses on wheels allowing
for more habitable and self-sufficient options, including solar
self-powering, satellite Internet, and water-efficient recycling
systems: “autonomous housing.”
Fourthly, perhaps most fundamentally, the fast-rising global
unsettlement of populations due to urbanization, conflict, and climate
change. Contrary to many people’s intuitions, separated or separable
homes can achieve quite dense and efficient urban land use. Small
movable homes can be built with adaptable, multipurpose interior spaces,
and they can be two-story, joined, or stacked. They can also move to
almost anywhere, like a too-large parking lot or an obsolete bit of
road. And they can potentially move on, change, or expand, adapting to
changing land use or their residents’ changing needs.
[snip]
https://www.sightline.org/2022/09/09/were-wildly-underestimating-the-potential-of-mobile-housing/
This is a link to the whole series:
"SERIES: LEGALIZING INEXPENSIVE HOUSING
Affordable housing is lacking across the Northwest, with housing policy
here effectively excluding from the market many lower-cost options for low-income families and individuals. A raft of outdated laws bans the
types of residential arrangements that once housed most of the North
American working class and prohibits modest home options near jobs,
transit, schools, and neighborhood centers—from mother-in-law apartments
and triplexes to rooms that were safe, comfortable, and convenient but
small and basic.
As a result, families may scrimp on food or heat to be sure they can pay
rent each month; they may opt for black-market housing; or they may even
go homeless. Everyone deserves a clean, safe place to live; but beyond
safety regulations, the floor plans mandated by current housing rules
aren’t affordable for everyone. In this series, Sightline researchers
explore the key laws that prevent smart, affordable housing arrangements
of the past from getting to market today, and look to a Northwest
revival of inexpensive housing options."
https://www.sightline.org/series/legalizing-inexpensive-housing/
HOLY SHIT! I'm even on topic.
TB
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)