Do you worry about climate change?

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

ut the thing is, when we are asking people who currently have cars (right, the people already not on public transport), how many of them are actually going to do so when they feel unsafe on the transport?

My curvy teen is way more safe riding in my car downtown than they are on a train. Do I really want them taking a 9pm train home by themselves from campus? Or would I rather that they drive themselves? If I have the money for both, what am I likely to choose? 
 

That’s my point. We aren’t going to have widespread adoption because people often make these choices on an individual level, looking at their family and what is best for them.

 

This is very true.  
We also have busy, packed to minute lives. A bus wouldn’t be convenient.   Culturally America needs to work around the fact that we are a car society.  Public transportation where practical is a part of the solution, but it’s not going to be the #1 thing that saves us.  

[prairiewindmomma]

If I want to go talk to a homeless person, I have to walk about a block. My kids can’t leave their bikes in the front yard or they will get jacked and sold for parts. My neighbor had left his shoes out drying recently on the front porch and had them stolen. 
 

What’s your answer, Ordinary? Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to own houses or apartments? People shouldn’t be allowed to own a second home that they rent out for investment purposes? What change would you like to see? 

[Ting Tang]

1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

I didn't say anyone 'couldn't ' drive a truck every day if they wanted to. But there are other ways of living if people want to think about the options.

I  live in the countryside. Very few trucks here - some Land Rovers on farms but otherwise most every day vehicles are cars

You're in Europe.  In America, there are lots of trucks in the rural areas due to farming and agriculture, but also, recreation. Very few Land Rovers.  lol

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

).  I think we are definitely crossing the line of "freedom" when you start to tell people they can't live life enjoyably. 

The things outdoorsy people find enjoyable are going to be affected by climate change, so it’s not an either or situation.  It no fun to haul a boat to fish in a dead river or or dried up lake. 

[frogger]

Just now, Ordinary Shoes said:

There aren't perfect solutions but there are better solutions than what we do now. 

I think this a learned helplessness problem. We in the USA have convinced ourselves that homelessness is a problem that can't be solved. Who does that benefit? 

There are movements in every large American city working to address homelessness. They are usually at odds with the police and the political and business institutions in the city. The city mentioned above that I won't name due to the privacy concerns is a classic example of this. 

These cities have empty apartments waiting for AirBnB reservations while someone sleeps on the street or in their car. That makes no sense. These same cities build luxury apartments that sit vacant much of the year. This makes no sense unless you think about the policy decisions that drive that kind of behavior. 

And we're not just talking about the other. Most Americans have insufficient savings to retain their homes after a job loss. What would happen to your family if you were displaced by a hurricane or a wildfire? Do you know how many people, just like us, are living in vans at least part of the year? 

Well, homelessness doesn't mean mental illness. I was referring to mental illness, which results in attacks.

There are a myriad of reasons to be homeless. My husband took a pay cut to work for a company whose entire focus is to build low income housing because he wants to help his community and yes, we are a single income family. 

One of the frustrations I encounter is that people who live on the other side of town in single family homes are not the ones being attacked by the mentally ill. It is often other vulnerable populations. 

 

[Matryoshka]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

This is very true.  
We also have busy, packed to minute lives. A bus wouldn’t be convenient.   Culturally America needs to work around the fact that we are a car society.  Public transportation where practical is a part of the solution, but it’s not going to be the #1 thing that saves us.  

And we are very intentionally a car society.  We ripped out public transport that already existed.  We invested in speculative subdivisions that could only be accessed by car.  This was a choice, not an accident.

Also, the public transport we do have is pretty much unusable.  In Europe, I can go anywhere on public transport because it comes often and goes everywhere.  As the car came into existence, there was zoning - it was not allowed to build away from transport.  But also, the frequency of the transport is key.  As you say, transport needs to get you from point A to point B when you need to get there in a timely way.  Not hours apart, and no service outside of main commuting hours.  Not practical, but again, intentional.

Also, if you build it, they will come.  You can't say 'no one rides the train so we have to cut back service' - well, WHY does no one ride the train?  Partly because the times are not usable or convenient.  So, yeah, people riding it for a warm place to be ends up your clientele.  If the train were packed with people getting from point A to point B, that problem would also be less.

I was reading a great article about how a**-backward the US plans things.  In other places, you build the infrastructure first.  Then the housing/business around it.  Not the other way round like we do, which again is intentional and benefits the car/oil industries.  On purpose.  

[prairiewindmomma]

Fwiw, one of the things we have here is an extra tax assessment on people who earn more than median salary. It is used to fund low income apartments.

Edited May 3, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

nd we are very intentionally a car society.  We ripped out public transport that already existed.  We invested in speculative subdivisions that could only be accessed by car.  This was a choice, not an accident

Absolutely.  And we have no choice at this point but to live with it. It wouldn’t be possible to undo all of it.  We can acknowledge the problem that we’ve inherited, but we have no choice but to move forward from where we are.  

[Ting Tang]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

The things outdoorsy people find enjoyable are going to be affected by climate change, so it’s not an either or situation.  It no fun to haul a boat to fish in a dead river or or dried up lake. 

Of course, that'd be terrible.  We have a very polluted river due to factories, sewage, etc. they've been working on, so many will not eat fish from the river. But telling them they can't have a truck right now to take their boats out to a lake isn't going to go over too well with them.  The American way to find better ways of doing things.  Gotta stay positive the answers are out there. 

 

[frogger]

13 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Well, these people might regularly haul trailers, boats, RVs (perhaps they own things that need to be towed on a regular basis).  I think we are definitely crossing the line of "freedom" when you start to tell people they can't live life enjoyably.  You might live in the city where recreation is found in buildings, but in rural areas, it is found outdoors. Of course, you want to be a good steward of the environment. So, making vehicles that can do these things in a more earth-friendly way seems to be the way to go. I think things seem to be going in this direction.  I'm not trying to be combative. I used to live suburban and traveled urban. I've done the commuter train thing, but I now have a different perspective now that I live here.  I miss conveniences, too, but sometimes I appreciate less traffic and quietness.  It's hard to tell the rural man who enjoys taking his boat  out to go fishing he is doing life wrong.  Fishing is a great pasttime--taking kids out into nature to actually see and appreciate it. That is somewhat of a classical education right there. 

 I actually spent much of my childhood entirily off the road system and now live in a suburb (what the lower 48 would call rural 😂). I do want people to enjoy nature but they should pay the cost for the externality. The price is high so how much should they pay for their hobby versus everyone else pay for them? This is why higher gas prices are essential. Rather than make something illegal you make people think about the cost.

You can fish from a canoe. If you have a sea vessel, higher gas prices would encourage you to store it near where you use it or maybe take one longer trip instead of just going every weekend.

I think people could all be encouraged to think about the cost they are imposing on others and choose the things that give them the most enjoyment for the least cost to the enviroment. 

[MercyA]

47 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

The last train I rode had someone ranting on it, and throwing trash. He was pacing and yelling. It’s not uncommon. So, something different happened on this train for the marine to act the way he did. The fact that he intervened is surprising to me. I don’t know if he saw a weapon or if things looked like they were about to get physical….but the armchair response of “we just don’t care about the mentally ill” isn’t ringing true to me.

Seriously, y’all, if you are ever in my town, pm me, we can go ride public transport together. I think it may be eye opening for you.

I'm sure it would be eye-opening. I freely admit I am insulated here, although my DH has worked with the homeless in the larger city near us. 

I've read testimony from at least one other passenger, and I haven't seen anything that says that Neely was doing anything other than yelling and throwing things. It's possible he was being threatening; it's also possible someone was just itching for a fight and/or to be the hero.

I don't know what the answer is. No one should be afraid riding public transport, but neither should anyone be killed for being mentally ill.

Edited May 3, 2023 by MercyA

[Carol in Cal.]

38 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

To be fair, this is the sort of thing that happens in America every single day, train, plane, automobile, grocery store, mall, ringing peoples doorbells.  
 

 

I completely quoted after it said not to, 🤦‍♀️.  I’ll fix it.  

But public transit CONCENTRATES it.  At least out here on the left coast.

[Carol in Cal.]

The fact is that the US is a free society, in the classic sense of the word, and we have not been teaching the responsibilities of liberty—just the rights.  So we don’t have the universal moral consensus/ responsibility for self-control as individuals that render some things unthinkable and make it more the norm than the exception to enforce those.  There are multiple reasons for this, and they make it a difficult problem to address, but at least laying it out is a good first step.

A corollary problem is that we don’t confine dangerously mentally ill people, or dangerously drug addicted ones; again an easy summary comment that is difficult to address in a properly nuanced way, but again laying it out is a good first step.

[prairiewindmomma]

Ironically, statistically I am safer here than I was in TX. I agree with Carol that public transport concentrates the issue.

I am not trying to pick on you in any way Ordinary. I don’t think my asking what you would do is a form of learned helplessness. It is a “which strand of the yarn knot” do we pick at first? What can we realistically achieve?

I think there are some things my state does well. Taxes are progressive rather than regressive. We pay way more in taxes than we did in TX. But, my state also has a state insurance plan you can buy into at a reasonable rate. There is more access to social services. Housing is subsidized by the state for lower income people. There are transition to adult services for SPED people. There’s a wide range of community college programs for people who aren’t academically bound. We do that well here. 
 

I do think there should be some limits to corporate owned housing. I do think we need to limit vacation home shares to some extent—it’s super hard to live on the coast because everything has been turned into a vacation rental.

My first yarn piece would be to tackle mental health by opening more residential treatment beds. I would also fund the DA’s office better. I would require officers to wear cameras. Those are my top 3 things.

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Ironically, statistically I am safer here than I was in TX. I agree with Carol that public transport concentrates the issue.

I am not trying to pick on you in any way Ordinary. I don’t think my asking what you would do is a form of learned helplessness. It is a “which strand of the yarn knot” do we pick at first? What can we realistically achieve?

I think there are some things my state does well. Taxes are progressive rather than regressive. We pay way more in taxes than we did in TX. But, my state also has a state insurance plan you can buy into at a reasonable rate. There is more access to social services. Housing is subsidized by the state for lower income people. There are transition to adult services for SPED people. There’s a wide range of community college programs for people who aren’t academically bound. We do that well here. 
 

I do think there should be some limits to corporate owned housing. I do think we need to limit vacation home shares to some extent—it’s super hard to live on the coast because everything has been turned into a vacation rental.

My first yarn piece would be to tackle mental health by opening more residential treatment beds. I would also fund the DA’s office better. I would require officers to wear cameras. Those are my top 3 things.

We have the vaction rental problem too. I do feel vacation rentals should be taxed different than homes. I feel like I need more research to structure something correctly though. It can be difficult to enforce if not set up correctly. I am never sure whether to be more involved in housing or transportation policy. Not sure I have time to research both properly. 

[Laura Corin]

42 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

You're in Europe.  In America, there are lots of trucks in the rural areas due to farming and agriculture, but also, recreation. Very few Land Rovers.  lol

You're right, I didn't express myself well. Farmers here have Land Rovers for work rather than trucks. Other people living in the country usually have cars.

[ScoutTN]

49 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

There aren't perfect solutions but there are better solutions than what we do now. 

I think this a learned helplessness problem. We in the USA have convinced ourselves that homelessness is a problem that can't be solved. Who does that benefit? 

There are movements in every large American city working to address homelessness. They are usually at odds with the police and the political and business institutions in the city. The city mentioned above that I won't name due to the privacy concerns is a classic example of this. 

These cities have empty apartments waiting for AirBnB reservations while someone sleeps on the street or in their car. That makes no sense. These same cities build luxury apartments that sit vacant much of the year. This makes no sense unless you think about the policy decisions that drive that kind of behavior. 

And we're not just talking about the other. Most Americans have insufficient savings to retain their homes after a job loss. What would happen to your family if you were displaced by a hurricane or a wildfire? Do you know how many people, just like us, are living in vans at least part of the year? 

The cities do not build  the apartments nor own the rental property, individuals and companies do. Are you proposing draconian anti-private property laws? 

[prairiewindmomma]

Just now, ScoutTN said:

The cities do not build  the apartments nor own the rental property, individuals and companies do. Are you proposing draconian anti-private property laws? 

Here, the county actually does build and own low income rental properties.

[ScoutTN]

2 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Here, the county actually does build and own low income rental properties.

But the rentals mentioned are Air BnBs. Or did I misunderstand? 

[frogger]

1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

You're right, I didn't express mys well. Farmers here have Land Rovers for work rather than trucks. Other people living in the country usually have cars

You have higher gas prices which automatically create better incentives.

 

https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/shopping/cars/604410/gas-prices-around-the-world

 

 

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Here, the county actually does build and own low income rental properties.

Well, but she mentioned AirB&Bs and such and those would be privately owned. So it does sound like she wants to take people's property but I will let her explain. I already got in trouble for assuming someone didn't want people to be umemployed. 😂

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

The cities do not build  the apartments nor own the rental property, individuals and companies do. Are you proposing draconian anti-private property laws? 

Planning boards can require companies who want to build luxury apartments to also provide low-income housing as part of their permit. Counties can also charge much higher property taxes for vacation homes and those used as Air B&B.

[prairiewindmomma]

Yeah, those are separate issues.

One of the things my area is discussing is either having a saturation map that limits the number of licenses for vacation homes or requiring the rental home to be a primary residence for the owner—ie—ok to rent a room or an attached dwelling unit but not the entire house.

[Ting Tang]

35 minutes ago, frogger said:

 I actually spent much of my childhood entirily off the road system and now live in a suburb (what the lower 48 would call rural 😂). I do want people to enjoy nature but they should pay the cost for the externality. The price is high so how much should they pay for their hobby versus everyone else pay for them? This is why higher gas prices are essential. Rather than make something illegal you make people think about the cost.

You can fish from a canoe. If you have a sea vessel, higher gas prices would encourage you to store it near where you use it or maybe take one longer trip instead of just going every weekend.

I think people could all be encouraged to think about the cost they are imposing on others and choose the things that give them the most enjoyment for the least cost to the enviroment. 

Personally, I'm pretty uncomfortable telling people they need to pay more for everyday necessities,.  It might make you think about using less, but someone else is still profiting from that, and it is not the earth or climate.

There are lots of ways we can all do better.  Airplanes are leave a big carbon footprint, too, and we do not do that.  

There are always ways to do better.

Personally, I am not going to get into a canoe.  The last time I did that, I about tipped the thing.  lol

 

[frogger]

Just now, Ting Tang said:

Personally, I'm pretty uncomfortable telling people they need to pay more for everyday necessities,.  It might make you think about using less, but someone else is still profiting from that, and it is not the earth or climate.

There are lots of ways we can all do better.  Airplanes are leave a big carbon footprint, too, and we do not do that.  

There are always ways to do better.

Personally, I am not going to get into a canoe.  The last time I did that, I about tipped the thing.  lol

 

Actually I do think that airfare should include the externality of carbon. 

And most of what you named is not a neccesity. 

The truth is vehicle travel is heavily subsidized especially in rural areas. To tell everyone else they are required to help you pay for a hobby that is destroying their home is interesting. Taxing externalities (costs to other people) is the fairest way to do that without making laws against things.  

[Ting Tang]

23 minutes ago, frogger said:

Actually I do think that airfare should include the externality of carbon. 

And most of what you named is not a neccesity. 

The truth is vehicle travel is heavily subsidized especially in rural areas. To tell everyone else they are required to help you pay for a hobby that is destroying their home is interesting. Taxing externalities (costs to other people) is the fairest way to do that without making laws against things.  

Per capita, I understand what you are saying about a carbon footprint. Many things in First World America are not necessities.  I am not trying to be interesting.  High gas prices isn't just about filling up your truck gas tank to haul a boat.  The added taxes/higher transportation prices make everything more expensive, and when combined with inflation, it has been hard on a lot of people.  That's all I meant.  I will let the smarter people discuss this now.  

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Honestly, and this is where I know I am going to take a lot of heat (climate pun intended), I think we have already gone past the point of no return. Ten years ago I had hope. Now I am a doomer. 
 

Maybe this is my GenX vibe at play, but when I look at:

biosphere collapse—especially in oceans and rivers

insect numbers

mammalian decline

already baked in heat rises due to already existing issues

fertilizer issues

topsoil loss

sea level rise

extreme weather impacts re: flooding and drought

drained acquifers

future energy needs

population demographic shifts—even accounting for wonderful things like if we let in 200,000 climate refugees a year for the next ten years who are all magically high earners and we tax the heck out of their incomes

like, the whole totality of it all (I have a longer list but am also homeschooling while I post and have about five minutes before I need to go teach long division….again….)….it’s going to be really rough going by 2050. And 2100 is going to be bleak. Even with our decreased fertility rates, and assuming mass famine and deaths…we/Earth will be lucky to support 5 billion people at 2100.

I think I have mentioned here my kids are committed to having no kids themselves. They have grown up with smoky summers and have had evacuations due to weather and wildfire and they see what is coming and have all individually chosen to opt out of parenting. A couple say they will maybe adopt, but looking at housing and medical costs now, they don’t think they will be able to afford to. 
 

Maybe I am a leftist doomer? But, seriously, in reading the latest climate reports out of the UN and elsewhere, I believe the science while hoping we somehow magically escape things.

So, what do we do? We throw in that one starfish we can save on the beach. We tackle what is achievable before us. I am doing advocacy work IRL for good causes. I try not to complain about my tax bill. We are trying to live ethical lives in line with what we believe are solutions. Do I really think my solar panels are a fix? No, but I am lessening my demand on the grid. And that x100 other choices I make….including moving here, which meant that we went from driving 60k miles a year to under 2k. When I die, and we all will, I want peace in my soul knowing that while I couldn’t fix things, I tried. 

[BeachGal]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

Not OrdinaryShoes (obviously 😉) but I do not ride public transport.

Questions for those who do: Can people not go to a different car if there is someone mentally unwell aboard? Is there an emergency button that can be pushed, and how long does it take for someone to respond? Could people be somehow banned from riding the train? (Like, through a card reader system or something like that?)

I live in the Chicago area and have used public transportation for over 30 years — CTA trains and buses as well as Metra trains and Pace buses. When crime occurs on public transportation, it often happens quickly and unexpectedly. Or, the vehicle is packed and no one intercedes because they are scared, shocked or unaware. Or, a group of criminals does not allow the victim to leave. There is no time and/or no ability to reach an emergency button.

In some of the cases no one responded to the emergency call or the victim was seriously injured, raped or dead by the time help arrived and the criminal escaped.

I follow the crime daily and fairly closely and some of the criminals are repeat offenders so I guess they are able to continue using public transportation. I don’t know the official policy.

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Per capita, I understand what you are saying about a carbon footprint. Many things in First World America are not necessities.  I am not trying to be interesting.  High gas prices isn't just about filling up your truck gas tank to haul a boat.  The added taxes/higher transportation prices make everything more expensive, and when combined with inflation, it has been hard on a lot of people.  That's all I meant.  I will let the smarter people discuss this now.  

 

Oh no, I hope you won't leave. I just want one last chance to explain why I think prices and incentives work better than laws. Like you I have lived in different places and different people have different needs which is why I am against laws at the Federal level formost things.

I get it and I understand your worry but that is the number one, most important mechanism of a price. All the information in a price is invaluable. 

You see a price shows entrepreneurs opportunity. What if I talked to a park and put a boat rental right on the lake? Now people can go fishing in a larger boat without hauling it 50 miles first. What if I made a more aerodynamic trailer or people chose to buy hybrids instead of gas. What if I had a smaller boat but would still get to fish? Maybe I would still enjoy that.  It doesn't have to be a canoe. A flat bottomed rivrrboat with outboard is towable behind some cars. You definitly don't need an F-350 dually for that. It still allows choices rather than making a law outlawing something but is still beneficial to the enviroment. 

 

Is the cheapest way to get food somewhere rail or truck? Is it actually more energy efficient locally or shipped? Is it worth it to go berry picking or buy from a farm? Every single price message is being distorted by subsidies and by more and more laws rather than just giving people freedom and choices and letting their creativity do the work. 

If food ended up being more expensive than help people at the end point but I'm just asking that we quit distorting price signaling along the way. 

Because carbon is an externality that affects people not involved in the transaction and it has high costs (like moving whole villiages) it is best to put that into the transactions. This is easier with gas than other things. If you try to make laws to control things on the other hand, certain groups will end up more disadvantaged. It will not turn out fair because we all live differently and have different needs.

[prairiewindmomma]

Achievable if we had the will:

taxing corporations and high earners to more equitably distribute funds across the populace and for some of the changes we need to make

universal healthcare, including medical and dental 

low income housing, with service centers integrated into some of them

smaller class sizes with more aggressive academic interventions in k-8 so kids are ready for higher academics (we will need capable people to fill jobs given the demographic shift)

universal preschool as an option+ paid maternal and paternal leave, paid family caregiving leave to help keep earners working given demographic shift

easier access to employee retraining (same as above)

Closer tie-ins to worker training programs and employers (we do this well here)

reinvestment in infrastructure: public transport, roads, bridges, drainage, etc.

planned development: reintegration of green spaces into communities to deal with high water flow and temperature rises, changing of housing codes to require higher density building, limiting of vacation rentals, etc. 

more solar, wind, etc. to meet future energy needs—these will never fully replace fossil fuels

changes to big Ag and what is subsidized

breaking up of monopolies

changing of election funding + term limits

and more…but now I have to go.,

[frogger]

42 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

First day of law school question - what is property? 1L property law professor answer - it's a bundle of rights. 

 

True. Zoning greatly restricts those rights too. It sounds like the west coast has hit that wall where they realize they need to allow for more building. I own an acre and would love to put a 4 or 6 plex on it. That would add to the housing stock but I am not allowed. 

Our city decided to at least allow Mother-in-law apartments but the restrictions are still too high and big projects (especially if they have the words "low income" in them) are too easily shut down by neighbors even though they do not own the property. 

[Ting Tang]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

Oh no, I hope you won't leave. I just want one last chance to explain why I think prices and incentives work better than laws. Like you I have lived in different places and different people have different needs which is why I am against laws at the Federal level formost things.

I get it and I understand your worry but that is the number one, most important mechanism of a price. All the information in a price is invaluable. 

You see a price shows entrepreneurs opportunity. What if I talked to a park and put a boat rental right on the lake? Now people can go fishing in a larger boat without hauling it 50 miles first. What if I made a more aerodynamic trailer or people chose to buy hybrids instead of gas. What if I had a smaller boat but would still get to fish? Maybe I would still enjoy that.  It doesn't have to be a canoe. A flat bottomed rivrrboat with outboard is towable behind some cars. You definitly don't need an F-350 dually for that. It still allows choices rather than making a law outlawing something but is still beneficial to the enviroment. 

 

Is the cheapest way to get food somewhere rail or truck? Is it actually more energy efficient locally or shipped? Is it worth it to go berry picking or buy from a farm? Every single price message is being distorted by subsidies and by more and more laws rather than just giving people freedom and choices and letting their creativity do the work. 

If food ended up being more expensive than help people at the end point but I'm just asking that we quit distorting price signaling along the way. 

Because carbon is an externality that affects people not involved in the transaction and it has high costs (like moving whole villiages) it is best to put that into the transactions. This is easier with gas than other things. If you try to make laws to control things on the other hand, certain groups will end up more disadvantaged. It will not turn out fair because we all live differently and have different needs.

Oh no, I am definitely not the smartest person on this subject matter.  I have done more reading in the past year than I have my whole life about it, so I am becoming more aware of the issues.  That is a great point that high prices lead to innovation! 

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Oh no, I am definitely not the smartest person on this subject matter.  I have done more reading in the past year than I have my whole life about it, so I am becoming more aware of the issues.  That is a great point that high prices lead to innovation! 

The thanks button looks like I'm awarding you for being agreeable. It is just meant to be a thanks for giving me a chance. Lol

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[Heartstrings]

45 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

hen we deem something "realistically achievable" is that based on the assumption that things (our political system mostly) don't change significantly? 

I think sometimes it an acknowledgment that only 50% of the population wants to work toward change and the other 50% would rather watch the whole thing burn than allow one single thing to change.  For some of that 50% the fact that it upset people they disagreed with would actually be a huge bonus.  

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

True. Zoning greatly restricts those rights too. It sounds like the west coast has hit that wall where they realize they need to allow for more building. I own an acre and would love to put a 4 or 6 plex on it. That would add to the housing stock but I am not allowed. 

Our city decided to at least allow Mother-in-law apartments but the restrictions are still too high and big projects (especially if they have the words "low income" in them) are too easily shut down by neighbors even though they do not own the property. 

This is crazy talk for our state given our water shortages.  

 

[prairiewindmomma]

I agree with Steffen’s notion of discontinuity. I agree that past patterns of behaviors and the slow grind of bureaucracy don’t serve us well during times of upheaval. I believe (and am trying to live) personal ruggedization. But, I also think that Steffen’s focus on the individual ignores the vast swaths of people who lack the resources to care for themselves well even now. I don’t think we should be leaving the poor and ill behind. And, given the apathy that so many individuals have towards other individuals, bureaucracy—a systemic organization of people—is one of the few ways that we can do that. 
 

One of the things COVID taught me is that people need communities. I will never be able to grow all of my own food, make all of my own clothing from sheep I sheared myself, provide my own dental and complicated medical care, etc. People need people. We need to specialize and divide labor. Emotionally, we need people. We are hard wired for that for our own survival. 
 

If we want “spiky leaps forward” it’s because actions will be coming from the community, not from any one individual.  And, because rarely do we all agree on solutions for any problems, and generally solutions require funding—that’s going to require legislative or some sort of community agreement on systemic change. 
 

When confronted with facts that go against your worldview, you either change your worldview or you become a liar (to yourself). I have had plenty of experience in the last several years of watching how people use cognitive dissonance and embrace the rebound effect because they cannot handle having their worldview change so they deny facts and embrace the lies. As I stated way earlier in this thread, my friend still doesn’t believe another flood will come for her in Houston. 
 

If we can’t agree there is a problem, there is little hope for systemic solution.

Edited May 3, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[Matryoshka]

3 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Absolutely.  And we have no choice at this point but to live with it. It wouldn’t be possible to undo all of it.  We can acknowledge the problem that we’ve inherited, but we have no choice but to move forward from where we are.  

But the answer is not to double down.  We can make different choices going forward, adding more robust infrastructure in already dense areas and not adding to the sprawl.

ETA: Also, it drives me nuts that the default for strip malls, our sprawl shopping go-to, is a big parking lot with the stores in the back.  It would cost ZERO extra dollars to put the stores up by the street with a sidewalk in front and have the parking in the back instead, and you could have walkable streets.  And also, they should put apartments above, especially for older or other people who can't drive much for whatever reason, would decrease traffic and make it so they could get to stores and restaurants without driving.  We need to stop just doing things because 'that's the way we've been doing it'.

Yes, that's mixed use zoning which suburbs hate.  But WHY.  

Edited May 3, 2023 by Matryoshka

[Ting Tang]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

The thanks button looks like I'm awarding you for being agreeable. It is just meant to be a thanks for giving me a chance. Lol

lol  I am here to learn!  I still have a lot of hope that we can improve the situation but also hopefully adapt to what may likely happen to a certain extent. 

[Matryoshka]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

True. Zoning greatly restricts those rights too. It sounds like the west coast has hit that wall where they realize they need to allow for more building. I own an acre and would love to put a 4 or 6 plex on it. That would add to the housing stock but I am not allowed. 

Our city decided to at least allow Mother-in-law apartments but the restrictions are still too high and big projects (especially if they have the words "low income" in them) are too easily shut down by neighbors even though they do not own the property. 

Zoning isn't in itself a bad thing, but zoning by definition prioritizes goals.  Zoning in the US has prioritized lower density - 2 acre lots, not multifamily dwellings, etc.

I was gobsmacked when I went to school in Germany and took Erdkunde (kinda Geography, but the focus isn't maps), we had a whole unit on Zoning - how you couldn't build a house any more than x distance from existing houses, and new off-ramps on highways were limited so that new neighborhoods wouldn't spring up - I thought that was so insane till I realized that's how they make sure they maintain arable land and forest (they don't have a midwest to grow all the crops), and also keep things accessible by transit and they also mentioned that it meant they didn't have to run utilities to sprawl either.  I've come completely around on this.

Also, why don't we have these kinds of discussions in our education here?

[Ting Tang]

This is a side note.  Royal Fireworks Press has some Problem-Based Learning units that touch on science issues, including one on wind energy.  I am going to have my son do a couple next year.  I will learn, but I think it's a great topic for students.  

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Zoning isn't in itself a bad thing, but zoning by definition prioritizes goals.  Zoning in the US has prioritized lower density - 2 acre lots, not multifamily dwellings, etc.

I was gobsmacked when I went to school in Germany and took Erdkunde (kinda Geography, but the focus isn't maps), we had a whole unit on Zoning - how you couldn't build a house any more than x distance from existing houses, and new off-ramps on highways were limited so that new neighborhoods wouldn't spring up - I thought that was so insane till I realized that's how they make sure they maintain arable land and forest (they don't have a midwest to grow all the crops), and also keep things accessible by transit and they also mentioned that it meant they didn't have to run utilities to sprawl either.  I've come completely around on this.

Also, why don't we have these kinds of discussions in our education here?

That is the exact opposite of our zoning. 😂

Historically, in our country, our zoning has been weaponized to keep people out. Then we wonder why housing is so expensive. There have been other reasons at times but that is a lot of it and so we sprawl. 

[frogger]

58 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is crazy talk for our state given our water shortages.  

 

This is why localized solutions are optimal. We all have our own problems. 😉

[Matryoshka]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

That is the exact opposite of our zoning. 😂

Historically, in our country, our zoning has been weaponized to keep people out. Then we wonder why housing is so expensive. There have been other reasons at times but that is a lot of it and so we sprawl. 

Yes, exactly the opposite.  It isn't zoning per se that's the problem, it's that our current zoning laws have stupid objectives that work against us. 

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Is it even fixable under capitalism?

I think this is a really important question.  I don’t know the answer, of course, but it’s a really good question.  

[Carol in Cal.]

15 minutes ago, frogger said:

That is the exact opposite of our zoning. 😂

Historically, in our country, our zoning has been weaponized to keep people out. Then we wonder why housing is so expensive. There have been other reasons at times but that is a lot of it and so we sprawl. 

I don’t know that that has been the case for quite a long time here, maybe 50 years ago.

Now it’s protective of open spaces, walkable communities (included personal safety), and crime prevention.  Those are good goals.

[frogger]

14 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I don’t know that that has been the case for quite a long time here, maybe 50 years ago.

Now it’s protective of open spaces, walkable communities (included personal safety), and crime prevention.  Those are good goals.

That is great. Most American towns are anti walkability. They are low density, need a car for everything, keep any low income people as far away as possible. I do see change but it is like pulling teeth.

 

It doesn't help convince them when community areas, greenbelts etc are trashed.  America is huge and we certainly all have different challenges.

 

Plus, ideas like seperating residential from business zones by nature make stuff not walkable There is no corner grocery if the five miles around you are R-1 only.

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[prairiewindmomma]

Interesting article on beef and environment and lobbying industry today: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine

[Carol in Cal.]

Well, in the Sierra cattle graze on National Forest land, and they eat brush that is a wildfire hazard.  I appreciate them, and I try to buy meat from that kind of supplier rather than from the big ag companies.  It does cost more, especially if it is grass finished.  But the transportation cost is nil as it’s in state, and it’s help prevent wildfires, which are a very serious environmental threat in and of themselves.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Carol in Cal.

[frogger]

I doubt capitalism is as much of a problem where I live. Non-owners shut down projects because they want to keep their neighborhoods "character". They are neither owner nor buyer. They have zero capital involvement but use the local government permitting procress to keep things from being built and throw fits.

For example, https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2022/09/07/nonprofit-pulls-plug-low-income-housing-project-independence-park/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=ktuu

 

This happens constantly and people wonder why housing isn't being built or only McMansions are allowed.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think keeping neighborhoods’ character is a worthy goal, and one that advocates should take into account when planning projects.  Habitat for Humanity is very good at that.  Their homes are on the modest side but are designed to fit into the communities where they are built.

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think keeping neighborhoods’ character is a worthy goal, and one that advocates should take into account when planning projects.  Habitat for Humanity is very good at that.  Their homes are on the modest side but are designed to fit into the communities where they are built.

Yes, everyone wants everything to be exactly same but make changes.