VOX America is in danger of losing its “measles-free” status
Another reason why I really dislike the anti-vaccination conspiracy movement.
Speaking of which, my anti-vaxxer relation still has not answered any of my questions.
Another reason why I really dislike the anti-vaccination conspiracy movement.
Speaking of which, my anti-vaxxer relation still has not answered any of my questions.
"By the way, I am still waiting for your answer to my ethics question.
And here are my interesting ethical questions:
•If people fail to vaccinate their child(ren) for fear of a rare event.
•And other children suffer or die because of that choice.
•Did those parent(s) do the ethical thing?
Remember that you made the argument that people with good nutrition, good healthcare, etc have little to fear from some of these viruses... But we know that viruses can't pick who gets them... :-(
So which ones should the child not get and why?
More Details "
34 comments:
Here's a related question: If people are suddenly getting typhoid, hepatitis, cholera, and now leprosy from all the human filth in San Francisco, who is to blame?
Source?
You are correct, I couldn't find a published source, except to note that HIV, Hepatitis and Rotavirus are possibilities. But cholera and typhoid are known to be caused by improper sanitation, so can they really be far behind? And are the known health threats sufficient to blame the SF supervisors for what DOES occur? I mean, you want to blame anti-Vaxxers for any disease outbreaks, so it seems reasonable and comparable to me.
Actually not really if you are a Conservative.
The citizens are responsible for their individual homelessness and living conditions. Or are you thinking that big government should:
- give them free housing?
- throw them in jail?
- other?
Just seems to me that we have the same situation here as we have in the gun debate. That is, all we need is a law that says you aren't allowed to poop in the street. And then some enforcement of the law. IF you can somehow change the culture so that being homeless and/or addicted, the problem can be avoided, but it seems SF is determined to continue to appease aberrant behavior and degrade the culture.
So you think they should have police on poop patrol?
Why do you think folks live on the street?
I think SF should stop giving free needles to junkies. I think SF should put cops on poop patrol and jail vagrants, or warn them to use public facilities. They could provide more public facilities.
You are correct, people choose to live on the streets, but it should be discouraged where possible, and alternatives made available. What I've found is that many are drug/alcohol-addicted or with mental problems, and the other half do not make enough for their own housing. Partly I blame building codes for that. Small homes can be built for about $8k, except there are not places that will allow it.
Sounds like you want government to solve this?
Where are the charities you so support?
You want a mobile home park in your neighborhood?
What do you think little homes are?
Government made the mess; they should clean it up. At least, they should quit making it worse and try something that actually works.
Charities were told that government would solve the problem. SF being a city packed with rich liberals, the charities are starved for funds. Liberals expect government to fix everything, so round we go.
I have a mobile home park near here already, and government is forcing our city to accept subsidized housing. That, of course, does not solve the problem of homes priced out of reach. AND police calls per capita there are 12 times what they are in the rest of town.
I think little homes are 300-600 square foot "tiny homes" with all the amenities, built with modern materials and techniques that minimize cost (and therefore lie outside most antiquated building codes). Last I checked it could be done for about $8k each.
Jerry,
When are you ever going to stop blaming government for everything bad and praising people for everything good?
The reality is that California has a very mild climate, an accepting culture and has been very successful. It is like a magnet for the crazies of the USA. And it is hard for many folks to afford a home. I am not sure how you see this to be a government created problem?
I am thankful to live in MN where only the craziest toughest homeless people choose to stay because it is below freezing half of the year. I am sure we would face California's problems if our climate stayed moderate year round.
Sorry but tiny homes are just a different form of mobile home... They will come with many of the same challenges as the traditional mobile home parks.
Please remember that the lot price is what drives most home costs. And why develepors are not excited to put a $50,000 on a $150,000 lot.
It is amusing when on one hand you state:
- charities can carry the whole load
and then state...
- charities can not handle even part of the load...
because government is carrying the big part...
The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of people out there who seems to like begging, pan handling, not fitting in, etc.
We never had beggars in Plymouth until a couple of years ago... Now as I exit 494 there is usually one at the top of the off ramp... Maybe government created them also?
And apparently $8,000 is materials only.
"And the costs are substantial. In San Francisco, one of the largest all-affordable housing projects, 1950 Mission Street, clocks in at more than $600,000 per unit."
"In St. Paul, affordable housing–mostly one bedroom units– in a renovated downtown building cost $665,000 per unit."
Even at $25-35,000 each, tiny homes are a sweeping bargain. Put 10 of them on a $100,000 lot, and it's still cheap. Just not allowed.
Jerry,
Are you serious or just pulling my leg?
You are recommending that we create more mobile home parks in residential neighborhoods?
As compared to a facility like this one.
And who again is going to pay for the $100,000 lot, sewer hookups, the mini home, etc?
Please remember that an apartment building is like "mini homes" stacked above and next to each other.
And apparently the lots in San Francisco cost a LOT more than $100K...
The project at 490 South Van Ness, the former site of a gas station the city purchased for $18.5 million in 2015, will bring to the city’s housing stock 89 units for low- and moderate-income families — 35 of which will be reserved for District 9 residents living within a mile of the site. :-)
You've basically proven my point, that "affordable housing" isn't. What's needed is out of the box thinking. Most of the homeless I meet-- the ones not too drug-addled or just addled-- have at least part-time jobs and cars, just not enough for housing, especially at $3-4000/month, what these "affordable" apartments should cost. Find cheaper land-- further out-- and employ modern technology to small homes (without building code interference), and this can be done. You cannot keep doing the same thing you always did and expect a different result, but that is what governments do.
So your answer now is to relocate them to mobile home "reservations" away from the cities?
And would you force them to relocate? Maybe we can call it "Trail of Tears" part 2?
It is a complicated problem with no easy answers...
Gentrification makes homes more expensive.
Should people be forced out by the wealthy folks?
You are correct, it is a complicated problem. Government/politicians like easy answers, so.... I am proposing a holistic solution, taking those people on the margins of homelessness and the margins of affordable housing, and bringing those margins together. I'll never understand why you want to object to this obvious though "complicated" solution.
Jerry,
You recommended buying cheap houses on cheap land...
Which means moving them to where no one wants to live...
Talking about a simplistic unrealistic answer...
Maybe you would make it as a politician. :-)
So, no one wants to live in a house of their own, near good transportation and services? How do you explain every suburb that ever was? How do you explain the drive to move "affordable housing" into all these suburbs? Is there no "cheap land" in the metro area, after it is abandoned and derelict? Is there no less expensive way to build a house than 1 stick at a time, with plush finishes and 2000 sq. ft.?
And if it is so "simplistic," why haven't governments seized on this obvious solution, Instead choosing to build "affordable housing" at $500,000/unit?
Because people like me and you fight having the government transplant these poor folks and their mobile home parks into our neighborhoods.
Because these folks want to live where they grew up...
Other?
And apparently land in SF is valuable even after it is done being used. Did you forget this already?
"The project at 490 South Van Ness, the former site of a gas station the city purchased for $18.5 million in 2015, will bring to the city’s housing stock 89 units for low- and moderate-income families — 35 of which will be reserved for District 9 residents living within a mile of the site." :-)
Remember you previous comment.
"I have a mobile home park near here already, and government is forcing our city to accept subsidized housing. That, of course, does not solve the problem of homes priced out of reach. AND police calls per capita there are 12 times what they are in the rest of town."
So would you be excited to have another "mini home" park near you?
I suggest to you the vast difference between a "home" no matter how humble that people can actually buy, and an apartment "given" them by government. The first requires effort and attitude, the second confirms a sense of entitlement. It isn't the content of the home that matters, it's the content of the characters in it. Making the free market work better shouldn't be a bad thing, like having government in the "making housing less affordable" business is. Suggestion: look up "Cabrini Green."
To answer your borderline insulting question, yes, if the same land that now houses those heavily subsidized duplex apartments had instead been used for tiny homes sold to willing homeless folks, I would be happier than I am now. Even WITH all the effort I put in at their (private charity) "resource center" already.
I don't disagree with you that it is best if people buy their home.
Unfortunately, even if we found a place that would happily accept "mini home parks", the folks who would settle there would not be the ideal neighbors based on our past history. I mean a lot of folks used to own their mobile home.
Would mini-homes help here?
Just curious... From what we read, there is not a mortgage market for mini-homes... How do you envision poor folk who do not have the money to pay their bills to come up with ~$30,000 for a home on a lot with utilities?
Here is where my experience has been instructive. Most of the people that come to the shelter appear to have cars (or rides) and jobs. It's just that those jobs don't pay enough to get an apartment or home (and no, $15/hour isn't going to help them). Bring those costs down, and they could; simple as that. And the people we put up in "transitional housing" (more expensive to US, cheap for them) are only there long enough to get a job, get "on their feet" and have enough saved to put up first and last month's rent as deposit. Obviously the same holds true, if the housing were cheaper, they would be better off.
I mean a lot of folks used to own their mobile home.
Would mini-homes help here?
You'll have to explain. Are you saying that people who OWN a mobile home find themselves homeless? Is this a big piece of the problem, somehow? And your link is behind a paywall.
I did look up "mini-home" and was referred to "modular home." They're basically mobile homes plus. I even looked into buying one years ago-- an A-frame lake cabin was particularly attractive in style and price. They can look like regular homes. For housing the homeless, we would need to find a way to put more of them in a smaller space; they don't need 1/2 acre lots.
I find that deleting my browser history and cookies let's me get more free views at NYT and WAPO...
Again... More small homes in a smaller space... You are recommending we zone for more mobile home parks in our neighborhoods... Are you supportive of that?
I am thinking the people of Plymouth will revolt... I think they prefer apartments where someone is responsible for maintaining the exterior.
Well, there was some housing built that was basically a big parking ramp, where pre-built "apartments" were just pigeonholed in by a giant crane. Higher density, about the same price per unit as a standalone mobile home. Even cheaper with centralized amenities. Don't know what happened to the idea.
Yep. And I wonder how much more use of non-code-compliant but high-tech materials might reduce the cost.
Do you mean like these non-code materials?
Who says that cladding was not up to code? Anyway, my comment was more to do with things like plastic plumbing, widely used but prohibited in some codes.
PEX Info from HUD
Cal approved in 2009
More regarding the fire that killed and/or injured a bunch of people
More info
Fine, keep insisting the status quo is an acceptable solution, when by the very existence of the problem it is not. Truly affordable housing would be a partial solution, especially for those at the margins (like I see), made homeless because of UNaffordable housing and little else. The other solution is to work at the bottom of the pile, the most radical cases, and for that just rounding them up and forcing them into tented compounds would be better than what government is doing for them now.
Post a Comment