Funny one of the first pictures they show of Houston is the beer can house. Guy used beer cans to cover the outside of his house. https://www.orangeshow.org/beer-can-house
I was thinking through the first 11 1/2 minutes-well if you want to see what the free market does-look at Houston. They finally got there.
Richard Florida was wrong. The creative class and millennials aren’t interested in dense urban living long term. The dream of cramming everyone into cities to justify elaborate mass transit systems was never going to work.
(03-01-2020 02:57 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: Richard Florida was wrong. The creative class and millennials aren’t interested in dense urban living long term. The dream of cramming everyone into cities to justify elaborate mass transit systems was never going to work.
I saw a recent survey that Millenials were living in the suburbs in greater numbers than the Boomers did at the same age.
Safety and security can be big motivators, even for younger people. many of our largest cities are failing (SF/LA/Chi) or starting to (NYC), and people don't want to raise kids in those situations. Unfortunately, the sorta libs who move out of the cities end up infecting the nice burbs with their leftist voting patterns.
(03-01-2020 08:35 PM)VCE Wrote: Safety and security can be big motivators, even for younger people. many of our largest cities are failing (SF/LA/Chi) or starting to (NYC), and people don't want to raise kids in those situations. Unfortunately, the sorta libs who move out of the cities end up infecting the nice burbs with their leftist voting patterns.
Well all these stories are because the media people like to live in tiny apartments in the city. And so all of their friends are the same. They assume everyone is like them. Its why many in the media still don't believe President Trump won the 2016 election. They don't know Millenials who live in the burbs or people who vote Republican.
Democrats in Ohio, California and Oregon Push Laws Demanding That Private Property Owners Allow Homeless to Camp on Their Land
The Dems answer to the housing situation....
Quote:CINCINNATI (WKRC) - Two recent court decisions surrounding homelessness may have a big impact on people sleeping on city streets. While the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case about criminalizing homelessness, an appeals court ruled encampments are allowed on private property.
Kevin Finn has worked to end homelessness in Cincinnati for 21 years. He cautiously applauds the two recent court rulings that address the criminalization of sleeping on the streets.
“I don't think there's anything helpful about making it a criminal act for people to be sleeping outside if ultimately what we want is for people to get into housing,” said Finn.
The Supreme Court will not hear a case on a ban against homeless people sleeping in public spaces. That now means there's a constitutional right to camp in public.
"Filing charges, making things they're doing illegal, making their police history longer is not helpful for the long-term goal,” said Finn.
Ohio's First District Court of Appeals says governments cannot ban homeless encampments from private property -- like Hamilton County did at the New Prospect Baptist Church in 2018.
Finn is apprehensive about calling the rulings victories.
“I don’t think it’s ever a good move to ever try to criminalize people sleeping outside,” said Finn. “But at the same time, a homeless person is three times more likely to die sleeping outside on the streets, so we need to find a balance where we’re not encouraging people to sleep outside in camps either.”
Finn says the answer to that is more no-strings-attached housing for the homeless and, just in time for Christmas, that’s happening in Cincinnati. Shelterhouse has added 200 more beds that were once only available in the winter.
“They are targeted at people who are only willing to lay down and go to sleep. They’re not necessarily willing to engage in services and different things like that, and those tend to be the kind of shelter beds that appeal to people who would otherwise stay out on the streets in camps,” said Finn.
Finn expects to see fewer people sleeping on sidewalks come the new year but says there’s only one solution if you want to see real change:
(03-01-2020 09:24 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Democrats in Ohio, California and Oregon Push Laws Demanding That Private Property Owners Allow Homeless to Camp on Their Land
The Dems answer to the housing situation....
Quote:CINCINNATI (WKRC) - Two recent court decisions surrounding homelessness may have a big impact on people sleeping on city streets. While the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case about criminalizing homelessness, an appeals court ruled encampments are allowed on private property.
Kevin Finn has worked to end homelessness in Cincinnati for 21 years. He cautiously applauds the two recent court rulings that address the criminalization of sleeping on the streets.
“I don't think there's anything helpful about making it a criminal act for people to be sleeping outside if ultimately what we want is for people to get into housing,” said Finn.
The Supreme Court will not hear a case on a ban against homeless people sleeping in public spaces. That now means there's a constitutional right to camp in public.
"Filing charges, making things they're doing illegal, making their police history longer is not helpful for the long-term goal,” said Finn.
Ohio's First District Court of Appeals says governments cannot ban homeless encampments from private property -- like Hamilton County did at the New Prospect Baptist Church in 2018.
Finn is apprehensive about calling the rulings victories.
“I don’t think it’s ever a good move to ever try to criminalize people sleeping outside,” said Finn. “But at the same time, a homeless person is three times more likely to die sleeping outside on the streets, so we need to find a balance where we’re not encouraging people to sleep outside in camps either.”
Finn says the answer to that is more no-strings-attached housing for the homeless and, just in time for Christmas, that’s happening in Cincinnati. Shelterhouse has added 200 more beds that were once only available in the winter.
“They are targeted at people who are only willing to lay down and go to sleep. They’re not necessarily willing to engage in services and different things like that, and those tend to be the kind of shelter beds that appeal to people who would otherwise stay out on the streets in camps,” said Finn.
Finn expects to see fewer people sleeping on sidewalks come the new year but says there’s only one solution if you want to see real change:
For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
I disagree. We tried low to no income housing in the urban core before and projects proved to be an abject failure. So we switched to subsidized house in hopes that not concentrating property would work better. But, that doesn’t appear to be working either.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
I disagree. We tried low to no income housing in the urban core before and projects proved to be an abject failure. So we switched to subsidized house in hopes that not concentrating property would work better. But, that doesn’t appear to be working either.
IMO a greater embrace of telecommuting is needed.
??? I'm not getting the connection to my post in what you said. I did not mention location in my post. My meaning was simply that no matter the location, there would be plenty more housing supply to choose from for the poor and middle classes if we removed 30+ million people who legally have zero right to be here, are here in willful violation of our laws, and take up resources they do not deserve or have any rights to from actual American citizens. So, if we estimate roughly 3 people per household (that may be a bit high, but many illegals share housing in shifts, so it seems to balance out) that would be 30+ million divided by 3 = roughly 10+ million additional housing units available for American citizens to consider. That would then give people more housing options, prices would normalize from the artificially inflated levels they are at now, and the worst housing stock could be eliminated. In general, the poor and especially lower middle classes would almost immediately enjoy better housing wherever they lived, urban or rural. My main point was that those who favor keeping illegal border-crossers here, letting even more in, and not deporting them hurt America's poor and lower classes.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
I disagree. We tried low to no income housing in the urban core before and projects proved to be an abject failure. So we switched to subsidized house in hopes that not concentrating property would work better. But, that doesn’t appear to be working either.
IMO a greater embrace of telecommuting is needed.
??? I'm not getting the connection to my post in what you said. I did not mention location in my post. My meaning was simply that no matter the location, there would be plenty more housing supply to choose from for the poor and middle classes if we removed 30+ million people who legally have zero right to be here, are here in willful violation of our laws, and take up resources they do not deserve or have any rights to from actual American citizens. So, if we estimate roughly 3 people per household (that may be a bit high, but many illegals share housing in shifts, so it seems to balance out) that would be 30+ million divided by 3 = roughly 10+ million additional housing units available for American citizens to consider. That would then give people more housing options, prices would normalize from the artificially inflated levels they are at now, and the worst housing stock could be eliminated. In general, the poor and especially lower middle classes would almost immediately enjoy better housing wherever they lived, urban or rural. My main point was that those who favor keeping illegal border-crossers here, letting even more in, and not deporting them hurt America's poor and lower classes.
I'm sorry, my post was not directly related to your comment.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
I disagree. We tried low to no income housing in the urban core before and projects proved to be an abject failure. So we switched to subsidized house in hopes that not concentrating property would work better. But, that doesn’t appear to be working either.
IMO a greater embrace of telecommuting is needed.
??? I'm not getting the connection to my post in what you said. I did not mention location in my post. My meaning was simply that no matter the location, there would be plenty more housing supply to choose from for the poor and middle classes if we removed 30+ million people who legally have zero right to be here, are here in willful violation of our laws, and take up resources they do not deserve or have any rights to from actual American citizens. So, if we estimate roughly 3 people per household (that may be a bit high, but many illegals share housing in shifts, so it seems to balance out) that would be 30+ million divided by 3 = roughly 10+ million additional housing units available for American citizens to consider. That would then give people more housing options, prices would normalize from the artificially inflated levels they are at now, and the worst housing stock could be eliminated. In general, the poor and especially lower middle classes would almost immediately enjoy better housing wherever they lived, urban or rural. My main point was that those who favor keeping illegal border-crossers here, letting even more in, and not deporting them hurt America's poor and lower classes.
I'm sorry, my post was not directly related to your comment.
OK, no problem. thanks for clearing that up for me.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
That and it's just a consequence of the centralization and urbanization of our economy. Jobs keep getting crammed into major cities, so people cram themselves into those cities. Demand goes up, prices spike, employers view those cities as "where people want to live" or "where the talent is," smaller cities stagnate economically and become increasingly bad places to live and do business, so businesses move more jobs to major cities, more people cram themselves in...
I don't know how you break the wheel here but I don't know how much better it's going to be. This cycle decimated small towns in the Great Plains and you're seeing it in the Great Lakes thanks to manufacturing drying up.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
I disagree. We tried low to no income housing in the urban core before and projects proved to be an abject failure. So we switched to subsidized house in hopes that not concentrating property would work better. But, that doesn’t appear to be working either.
IMO a greater embrace of telecommuting is needed.
??? I'm not getting the connection to my post in what you said. I did not mention location in my post. My meaning was simply that no matter the location, there would be plenty more housing supply to choose from for the poor and middle classes if we removed 30+ million people who legally have zero right to be here, are here in willful violation of our laws, and take up resources they do not deserve or have any rights to from actual American citizens. So, if we estimate roughly 3 people per household (that may be a bit high, but many illegals share housing in shifts, so it seems to balance out) that would be 30+ million divided by 3 = roughly 10+ million additional housing units available for American citizens to consider. That would then give people more housing options, prices would normalize from the artificially inflated levels they are at now, and the worst housing stock could be eliminated. In general, the poor and especially lower middle classes would almost immediately enjoy better housing wherever they lived, urban or rural. My main point was that those who favor keeping illegal border-crossers here, letting even more in, and not deporting them hurt America's poor and lower classes.
From what I gather illegals will live multiple families to a single family unit. Guessing Landlord does not mind because they can get significantly more in rent. So "Americans" are forced to compete with 3rd world chit in their own backyards.
(03-01-2020 10:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: For those that actually care about the housing situation for the poor and the lower middle class, who cannot afford the exclusive, over-luxury housing that is the primary stock being built nowadays, if we but remove the 30 million + illegal border-crossers and deport them back to whence they came, there would be plenty of affordable housing for all law-abiding, actual American citizens and their families, and the worst of what remains could be repurposed/renewed. But that's only for those that actually care about the poorer and needier folks, which the Left most definitely does not.
That and it's just a consequence of the centralization and urbanization of our economy. Jobs keep getting crammed into major cities, so people cram themselves into those cities. Demand goes up, prices spike, employers view those cities as "where people want to live" or "where the talent is," smaller cities stagnate economically and become increasingly bad places to live and do business, so businesses move more jobs to major cities, more people cram themselves in...
I don't know how you break the wheel here but I don't know how much better it's going to be. This cycle decimated small towns in the Great Plains and you're seeing it in the Great Lakes thanks to manufacturing drying up.
NY, Chicago and LA are starting to lose people. The next tier are not growing as fast on average as the mid-level cities. And it would probably be a lot slower if you pulled the Texas cities out of the mix.
(03-01-2020 09:24 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Democrats in Ohio, California and Oregon Push Laws Demanding That Private Property Owners Allow Homeless to Camp on Their Land
The Dems answer to the housing situation....
Quote:CINCINNATI (WKRC) - Two recent court decisions surrounding homelessness may have a big impact on people sleeping on city streets. While the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a case about criminalizing homelessness, an appeals court ruled encampments are allowed on private property.
Kevin Finn has worked to end homelessness in Cincinnati for 21 years. He cautiously applauds the two recent court rulings that address the criminalization of sleeping on the streets.
“I don't think there's anything helpful about making it a criminal act for people to be sleeping outside if ultimately what we want is for people to get into housing,” said Finn.
The Supreme Court will not hear a case on a ban against homeless people sleeping in public spaces. That now means there's a constitutional right to camp in public.
"Filing charges, making things they're doing illegal, making their police history longer is not helpful for the long-term goal,” said Finn.
Ohio's First District Court of Appeals says governments cannot ban homeless encampments from private property -- like Hamilton County did at the New Prospect Baptist Church in 2018.
Finn is apprehensive about calling the rulings victories.
“I don’t think it’s ever a good move to ever try to criminalize people sleeping outside,” said Finn. “But at the same time, a homeless person is three times more likely to die sleeping outside on the streets, so we need to find a balance where we’re not encouraging people to sleep outside in camps either.”
Finn says the answer to that is more no-strings-attached housing for the homeless and, just in time for Christmas, that’s happening in Cincinnati. Shelterhouse has added 200 more beds that were once only available in the winter.
“They are targeted at people who are only willing to lay down and go to sleep. They’re not necessarily willing to engage in services and different things like that, and those tend to be the kind of shelter beds that appeal to people who would otherwise stay out on the streets in camps,” said Finn.
Finn expects to see fewer people sleeping on sidewalks come the new year but says there’s only one solution if you want to see real change:
/
Density or Sprawl? The Urban Housing Crisis.
