Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

[nismaratwork]

I'll ask again - how much is enough? How comfortable should poverty be for a beneficiary of tax payer funds?

I've been thinking about this for days, and I can only come up with gut reactions and ideology. I don't think that there IS an answer unless the data exists to perform a meta-longitudenal study on outcomes of poverty under different circumstances.

If you're in poverty because that check goes into a pipe or a syringe or a pill... well, probably it should be really miserable. Of course, it will be miserable for all kinds of reasons. If you're in poverty because you've had lots of kids, now I'd LIKE to say something nasty, but there are wider implications there I'm not going to touch.
If you're in poverty for the reason lots are, then I dont' see how it's comfortable: being born into poverty from poverty correlates with a pretty awful life.

I think we also need to ask what we're gaining by making life comfortable or uncomfortable in this case. We already KNOW that people can live and die in poverty beyond belief... is it motivating them in some way?

BillPreston92/Esquire: So our policy should be based on the prefernces of who is currently wealthy? That's not policy, that's random, and it's the flipside of slashing programs like Pell Grants. By that logic, victims should sentence the guilty, which IS a logic some use... we don't.

 

[nismaratwork]

What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.

The lifestyle of the average middle class American isn't sustainable for American, never mind the world. Do you understand that?

 

[WhoWee]

What I am saying is we should try to figure out what it takes in resources and man hours to sustain a lifestyle similar to an average middle class american. For example how many acres does it take to provide the food that an average american consumes in a lifetime. Also how many hours does it take to maintain said acreage. How many hours does it take to build an average home, how much lumber. That sort of thing. I think it would be a more accurate representation of how much an average person needs to maintain such quality of life and therefore how much they can give. Do you see what I am getting at? Looking at wages only can be deceptive because of all the economic factors that effect wage.

What would you propose to do with that information?

 

[WhoWee]

If you're in poverty because that check goes into a pipe or a syringe or a pill... well, probably it should be really miserable.

This is valid. IMO - the beneficiaries should be accountable. There should be incentives to kick a drug habit.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is valid. IMO - the beneficiaries should be accountable. There should be incentives to kick a drug habit.

I'd agree not just from a moral view, but it's also generally considered a fairly necessary part of that kicking process. Even in the disease model of addiction, making an addict "comfy" in their addiction is basically killing them. You don't have to hurt them, just put them face-to-face with the realities of their addiction: loss of friends, money, home, respect, etc.

I don't see how that doesn't apply elsewhere, BUT...
(you knew a but was coming, right?)

...Mental health. MOST drug addicts aren't mentally ill, but a whole hell of a lot of mentally ill people are addicted to drugs. In some cases, such as Bipolar Disorder you have estimates that start to push 80% in the more respectable sources, to the more general view which is nearly 100%. Now in that context not only is it pointless to pretend that accountability is the same (not competency mind).

In the same way, if you put 100 madly driven, talented people in desperate poverty from birth, what are their odds? I truly don't know, so this isn't a trap, I just feel I need a sense of that before your basic question can be answered. Just how fair is the playing field once you're on the bottom, even if you have talent, wits, and that great American quality: hustle.

 

[WhoWee]

I'd agree not just from a moral view, but it's also generally considered a fairly necessary part of that kicking process. Even in the disease model of addiction, making an addict "comfy" in their addiction is basically killing them. You don't have to hurt them, just put them face-to-face with the realities of their addiction: loss of friends, money, home, respect, etc.

I don't see how that doesn't apply elsewhere, BUT...
(you knew a but was coming, right?)

...Mental health. MOST drug addicts aren't mentally ill, but a whole hell of a lot of mentally ill people are addicted to drugs. In some cases, such as Bipolar Disorder you have estimates that start to push 80% in the more respectable sources, to the more general view which is nearly 100%. Now in that context not only is it pointless to pretend that accountability is the same (not competency mind).

In the same way, if you put 100 madly driven, talented people in desperate poverty from birth, what are their odds? I truly don't know, so this isn't a trap, I just feel I need a sense of that before your basic question can be answered. Just how fair is the playing field once you're on the bottom, even if you have talent, wits, and that great American quality: hustle.

IMO - it's better for the system and the people to find a way to help people kick their dependency - whatever it might be.

 

[BillPreston92]

The lifestyle of the average middle class American isn't sustainable for American, never mind the world. Do you understand that?

Oh I am very aware of that possibility. That is what I currently believe. That was the point of what I proposed. It would be important to figure out what is sustainable and how much can one afford to give. That would be necessary to make a decision on how much we can afford for entitlement programs.

BillPreston92/Esquire: So our policy should be based on the prefernces of who is currently wealthy? That's not policy, that's random, and it's the flipside of slashing programs like Pell Grants. By that logic, victims should sentence the guilty, which IS a logic some use... we don't.

What did I say that would create this response? I did not say that policy should be based on those that are currently wealthy. What I said is that starting at creating what middle class americans consider comfortable. If that is found to be unsustainable that would be pretty important to the subject of entitlement programs.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh I am very aware of that possibility. That is what I currently believe. That was the point of what I proposed. It would be important to figure out what is sustainable and how much can one afford to give. That would be necessary to make a decision on how much we can afford for entitlement programs.

While one is concerned with evening the score, do you think other nations will be? This just isn't connected to political or human reality in any way I've seen in life. The issue with entitlements isn't the CONCEPT, it's the execution. If we rebuilt it to be fiscally sound, then as WhoWee is essentially telling me in his previous post, the SYSTEM should inform US about the limits.

What did I say that would create this response? I did not say that policy should be based on those that are currently wealthy. What I said is that starting at creating what middle class americans consider comfortable. If that is found to be unsustainable that would be pretty important to the subject of entitlement programs.

You appealed to the notion that personal wealth or poverty (and all in between) should even be an issue. I see much more profit in changing our corporate tax structure to close loopeholes and to make it in line with every other developed nation.

I'm struck that honest attempts to create artificial equality end in something far from the original ideals. Humans have become the apex predators of a planet... we're going to experience the fate of all apex predators; reduction or extinction.

WhoWee: Agreed, but our mental health system has been destroyed in favor of our prison system and entitlements.

 

[WhoWee]

Agreed, but our mental health system has been destroyed in favor of our prison system and entitlements.

In another thread earlier today I made comment about converting the Post Office locations that will soon be closed into clinic locations for Medicaid. I don't know if that's feasible or not, but the premise is that Medicaid beneficiaries need easy access to preventative care. This would also eliminate the need for Medicaid beneficiaries to visit emergency rooms for cold symptoms. To staff the clinics, I put forth the idea of providing tax credits to doctors for their time.

On the topic of dependency, the methadone clinics seem to be left out of all relevant discussions. Care to bring it into this one?

 

[mheslep]

Wow. I didn't expect that! That qoute is about the apathy of German citizens in the Nazi rise to power, and I know... you know that already.. The power of propaganda is sickening...
How is that anyway comparable? ...

Its a metaphor. In the authority you grant to the majority you've mentioned no limits, nothing that would restrain that authority. I referenced a well known metaphor for what can happen when populous causes are granted unlimited authority. Do you believe any such limits are required? If so, what are they?

 

[BillPreston92]

While one is concerned with evening the score, do you think other nations will be? This just isn't connected to political or human reality in any way I've seen in life. The issue with entitlements isn't the CONCEPT, it's the execution. If we rebuilt it to be fiscally sound, then as WhoWee is essentially telling me in his previous post, the SYSTEM should inform US about the limits.

I am really having trouble understanding that first sentence in context, why did you post that in response to what I just said?
If you don't know what it takes to sustain a 'comfortable' life in real things like food, water and shelter how is it possible to figure out how many lives can be sustained through entitlements? The system cannot inform us of our limits if the system was created by people. The only system that we can rely on for that information is our ecosystem. Understanding the limits of that system is a more reliable source. I don't need 'the economy' to survive. I can separate myself from a man made system, I cannot separate myself from the ecosystem. I cannot separate myself from the things that are necessary to my survival

You appealed to the notion that personal wealth or poverty (and all in between) should even be an issue. I see much more profit in changing our corporate tax structure to close loopeholes and to make it in line with every other developed nation.

I'm struck that honest attempts to create artificial equality end in something far from the original ideals. Humans have become the apex predators of a planet... we're going to experience the fate of all apex predators; reduction or extinction.

Yeah, with that attitude...

Joking, anyways are you saying that personal taxes should have nothing to do with entitlement programs. If the corporate tax was raised then all of the goods that company provided would then become more expensive, or jobs would be lost. So a corporate tax is more of a tax on the consumer than on the person making the most profit. If that person(CEO,president,whatever) had an increased tax on their own personal income it would be directly from them and not translate to the consumer or loss of jobs.
I am not sure how honest or good natured the attemts at equality have been in the past.
It is really something quite new to human civilization. That is a much larger question that pertains really to the nature of human beings. It is not something that has been sufficiently
studied from what I know.

 

[BillPreston92]

Its a metaphor. In the authority you grant to the majority you've mentioned no limits, nothing that would restrain that authority. I referenced a well known metaphor for what can happen when populous causes are granted unlimited authority. Do you believe any such limits are required? If so, what are they?

Interesting question...

If you take away the power from the majority what do you have? Who is qualified to make judgement on the majority decision?

I do believe there should one limit. That is personal logic. The problem with coming to any logical conclusion is that one comes to such conclusions based on the information they have. We may disagree on something not because either person's logic is flawed but because of the different information we recieve. I think it is important to realize where various information comes from. They(GERMANS) should have used there own personal beliefs and their own logic to cut through the propaganda. I think this is a problem in any society. I find it interesting how the media can influence a large group of people to get behind things like removing tax cuts for the rich for example. Because the rich create jobs?
So it is possible to get a large group of lower middle class americans to support something that has no benefit to them by appealing to certain things like national pride."It's not american to tax! So take away those tax increases for the rich because they will create jobs for us!" Meanwhile, the super rich are laughing it up. That is the way I see it, but then again the information that I get is the only basis of my logical conclusions, and so that may change with new information.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it interesting how the media can influence a large group of people to get behind things like removing tax cuts for the rich for example. Because the rich create jobs?

If the "rich" don't create jobs - who does?

 

[BillPreston92]

If the "rich" don't create jobs - who does?

Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.

an analysis of the 2007 Census data shows that young firms (defined as one
to five years old) still account for roughly two-thirds of job creation, averaging nearly four
new jobs per firm per year. Of the overall 12 million new jobs added in 2007, young
firms were responsible for the creation of nearly 8 million of those jobs.

Given this information, it is clear that new and young companies and the entrepreneurs
that create them are the engines of job creation and eventual economic recovery. The
distinction of firm age, not necessarily size, as the driver of job creation has many
implications, particularly for policymakers who are focusing on small business as the
answer to a dire employment situation.

http://www.kauffman.org/research-and-policy/where-will-the-jobs-come-from.aspx"

That is just the first thing I grabbed off a search. I have heard this before and this could be a whole thread by itself. Where do most new jobs come from? Something like that...

 

[WhoWee]

Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.

Small businesses do create jobs, and I agree the owners are typically closer to their employees and the community. Some of these small businesses also generate millions of dollars in profits - what is the threshold for "filthy rich"?

 

[WhoWee]

Small businesses create jobs. The owners are closer to their employees and their communities. And are generally not filthy rich.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider all of the fast food stores and the shops in your local mall "small businesses"?

 

[nismaratwork]

In another thread earlier today I made comment about converting the Post Office locations that will soon be closed into clinic locations for Medicaid. I don't know if that's feasible or not, but the premise is that Medicaid beneficiaries need easy access to preventative care. This would also eliminate the need for Medicaid beneficiaries to visit emergency rooms for cold symptoms. To staff the clinics, I put forth the idea of providing tax credits to doctors for their time.

On the topic of dependency, the methadone clinics seem to be left out of all relevant discussions. Care to bring it into this one?

Well, I'm not sure about converting post offices, but on the subject of Methadone... that is controversial. My personal belief is that it can be helpful, but it's not a sane way to treat addiction. As a treatment for pain, it's absolutely fantastic when it works. Given the incredible ease with which opiate addicts can get benzodiazapines (such as Xanax), and the effect of mixing it with Methadone, I tend to fall into the "horrified" group. Benzos are absolutely devastating in terms of physical dependency, and when you discover someone is taking 10-20 mg per DAY... I can't even express my outrage.

What's the solution?... stick the poor bastards on enough Barbiturates to float the Titanic, and tug the Benzos, then wean off the barbiturates. Titrating down from those massive doses is a process of months if not years, so... yeah, I'm not a fan of Methadone clinics AT ALL. We need to move beyond "12 steps", or other drugs in the treatment of addiction, and I just don't see that happening right now. Pseudoscience has a HUGE role to play in this as well, but it's not relevant to the topic.

To get back to your clinic notion, I'll say this: ignoring the obvious difficulties implementing them (clearly you were giving an example, an idea of your intent), the IDEA is great. As you doubtless know, doctors are "state-shopping" because of desperate and sometimes berserk laws and lawsuits. There needs to be an acknowledgment on all sides that mistakes HAPPEN when you treat millions, but we can't let these clinics become a well-meant, but destitute system. I think a trust would need to be set in place to protect its funding from looting by the politicians, but also complete transparency.

Nothing here is easy, but if the clinics were as you say, funded well and properly... what could be bad about it? We're not restricting access, just partitioning it in a way that will make the lives of doctors, nurses, and insurance easier... not to mention people tired of waiting in ER lobbies. My only concerns really have nothing to do with the system you propose, just what people could do with it, but that's true of any institution. If you add basic mental health services (suicide prevention, anger management courses, addiction...whatever can be figured) that doesn't require a fleet of Psychologists... and it shouldn't. I can't IMAGINE how much money would be saved each year through that kind of routine screening that so often is just not a part of life for the section of society we're describing.

I see two major initial hurdles:

1.) Democrats will use this is a political prop: we're ghettoizing the poor.
2.) Republicans will use this a political prop: we're giving freebies to the poor.

Both would be wrong, but between that kind of noise... ouch... maybe people will be ready when we're closer to bankruptcy.

 

[WhoWee]

Nothing here is easy, but if the clinics were as you say, funded well and properly... what could be bad about it? We're not restricting access, just partitioning it in a way that will make the lives of doctors, nurses, and insurance easier... not to mention people tired of waiting in ER lobbies. My only concerns really have nothing to do with the system you propose, just what people could do with it, but that's true of any institution. If you add basic mental health services (suicide prevention, anger management courses, addiction...whatever can be figured) that doesn't require a fleet of Psychologists... and it shouldn't. I can't IMAGINE how much money would be saved each year through that kind of routine screening that so often is just not a part of life for the section of society we're describing.

I see a Federal (funded facilities and equipment) Health Clinic network (operated by the state with Federal tax incentives for doctors to participate) as an inevitable - yet pre-emptive move. Currently, less and less doctors want to participate in Medicaid - in spite of the current $63,750 tax incentive (only $44,000 for Medicare only) under the ARRA - do you agree? We're seeing an expansion of Medicaid and less places of service - with overflow to the most expensive point of service - the emergency room.

I don't see this as a partition. This is a way to meet the needs of the expanded Medicaid system - without forcing doctors to treat beneficiaries in their primary practices - which increases the overhead costs of the practice.

In the context of this thread - this is a way to provide affordable preventative and routine healthcare.

There would be one stipulation - no lawsuits as a result of not running exhaustive series of expensive tests - let the doctors use their skills to treat people and not practice defensive medicine.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see a Federal (funded facilities and equipment) Health Clinic network (operated by the state with Federal tax incentives for doctors to participate) as an inevitable - yet pre-emptive move. Currently, less and less doctors want to participate in Medicaid - in spite of the current $63,750 tax incentive (only $44,000 for Medicare only) under the ARRA - do you agree?

Competely.

We're seeing an expansion of Medicaid and less places of service - with overflow to the most expensive point of service - the emergency room.

Agreed as well, and well said.

I don't see this as a partition. This is a way to meet the needs of the expanded Medicaid system - without forcing doctors to treat beneficiaries in their primary practices - which increases the overhead costs of the practice.

I also agree, but how to make that clear to people who are still afraid that the G-man want to kill Nana?

In the context of this thread - this is a way to provide affordable preventative and routine healthcare.

There would be one stipulation - no lawsuits as a result of not running exhaustive series of expensive tests - let the doctors use their skills to treat people and not practice defensive medicine.

Agreed, these would be clinics of FIRST resort, not the only place to go. If you have a head injury, go to the ER, if, as you say it's the sniffles... head to this clinic.

 

[WhoWee]

I still like the idea of converting closed Post Offices - CNN reported 2,000 more will close.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/24/news/economy/postal_service_close/index.htm

My guess is the Government will be required to continue to pay rent - why not use the ones that make sense?

 

[nismaratwork]

I still like the idea of converting closed Post Offices - CNN reported 2,000 more will close.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/24/news/economy/postal_service_close/index.htm

My guess is the Government will be required to continue to pay rent - why not use the ones that make sense?

I'd weigh in, but I know absolutely NOTHING about the postal service except that they make the mail happen.

So, I would say there needs to be a use found for them, but whether or not it's feasible to convert them into clinics... I just lack the necessary info to even guess. It's clever however, and it would be logical to use existing structures if possible.

 

[WhoWee]

I'd weigh in, but I know absolutely NOTHING about the postal service except that they make the mail happen.

So, I would say there needs to be a use found for them, but whether or not it's feasible to convert them into clinics... I just lack the necessary info to even guess. It's clever however, and it would be logical to use existing structures if possible.

Nothing special about the facilities - some are storefronts and some are freestanding - mostly open space. I got this idea a few weeks ago while sitting in a NEW emergency room. The lobby was standing room only of people with the flu and minor cuts and burns. However, the treatment rooms were filled with ambulance arrivals.

Inside the treatment area, the rooms were all positioned on the outside walls and the nurses station was positioned in the center. These "rooms" were mostly equipment with curtains and some glass partitions. I couldn't help but think it could be duplicated almost anywhere with electric and water.

As for the people with minor issues - most were mostly dealt with in the triage area - a 10 x 20 glass cube with an intake nurse an aide, and (rotating) case nurses.

 

[mheslep]

Interesting question...

If you take away the power from the majority what do you have?

These questions have been posed and various solutions tried since ancient Athens. A workable solution appeared circa 1789. The most cogent of these discussions to my mind are here:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/madison.htm
Generally speaking, the answer to your question arrived upon in the US case is that the majority rules via a constitution republic, with power divided in a federal system between states and national government. Most importantly, the powers exercised by the majority via the constitution are i) limited and enumerated, and ii) constrained to never infringe on the rights of the individual. A majority so constrained does not have the power to take away all the property of individuals.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nothing special about the facilities - some are storefronts and some are freestanding - mostly open space. I got this idea a few weeks ago while sitting in a NEW emergency room. The lobby was standing room only of people with the flu and minor cuts and burns. However, the treatment rooms were filled with ambulance arrivals.

Inside the treatment area, the rooms were all positioned on the outside walls and the nurses station was positioned in the center. These "rooms" were mostly equipment with curtains and some glass partitions. I couldn't help but think it could be duplicated almost anywhere with electric and water.

As for the people with minor issues - most were mostly dealt with in the triage area - a 10 x 20 glass cube with an intake nurse an aide, and (rotating) case nurses.

Well in that case I can't really see an issue, assuming that they're not being closed because they're no longer servicing a meaningful population center. You'd need SOME capacity for emergencies and quarentine, but it would be pretty damned minimal for cases that emerge WITHIN the facility and focused on moving the person to a hospital.

I think we could do better than what you describe for similar money when we're dealing with pre-existing structures, but other than that... yeah, I'd go there instead of an ER if I that were my situation. All other issues would apply to any renovated structure, and don't bear mentioning.

 

[WhoWee]

For the purpose of this thread - a clinic of this type is "adequate" for the type of care we've discussed herein. If a shooting/stabbing/car accident victim wanders in - they'll have to call an ambulance and stabilize - no different than a doctors office.

I think as long as the locations didn't turn into pain management practices - the model would be effective.

People with insurance would continue to use their doctors private practice.

 

[nismaratwork]

For the purpose of this thread - a clinic of this type is "adequate" for the type of care we've discussed herein. If a shooting/stabbing/car accident victim wanders in - they'll have to call an ambulance and stabilize - no different than a doctors office.

I think as long as the locations didn't turn into pain management practices - the model would be effective.

People with insurance would continue to use their doctors private practice.

Oh, I'm not arguing that people wandering from the streets and bleeding out are the issue. HOWEVER... you do kind of need the ability to stabilize someone if they have the bad form to say, have a heart attack on the premises or something else complicated. That shouldn't require much.

The pain management issue is easily resolved: if you need need X, Y, or Z medications, you can't get them there. That would be an issue that we simply require the "next level" of attention, and this shouldn't be about chronic care either. As you've said, this is essential care of high quality and low cost BECAUSE it focuses on "family practice" issues.

I'd add, shifting the sniffles from the ER to a clinic would also leave ER's far more prepared to do what they are meant to... handle emergencies. I can't help but believe that this would also have a positive effect on issues such as physician fatigue, and the shortage of ER nurses.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, in the context of this thread, I think there are a lot of practical solutions that are overlooked because of the enormity of the task - it's easier to just throw money around regardless of the outcomes and unintended consequences.

Earlier in the thread I suggested we reclaim inner city lots and re-develop with small and energy-efficient houses. IMO - it's insane to subsidize rent payments (often in very poor physical facilities) that actually exceed the cost of payments for a new home. This thread asked a question about "comfort" - what is an adequate housing plan? Is a 600 sq ft energy efficient new house (that costs less than $50,000 anywhere in the country on a reclaimed city lot) adequate?

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, in the context of this thread, I think there are a lot of practical solutions that are overlooked because of the enormity of the task - it's easier to just throw money around regardless of the outcomes and unintended consequences.

Earlier in the thread I suggested we reclaim inner city lots and re-develop with small and energy-efficient houses. IMO - it's insane to subsidize rent payments (often in very poor physical facilities) that actually exceed the cost of payments for a new home. This thread asked a question about "comfort" - what is an adequate housing plan? Is a 600 sq ft energy efficient new house (that costs less than $50,000 anywhere in the country on a reclaimed city lot) adequate?

I really don't know... I've never been married so... maybe?... I'd have to believe that 600 sq ft of warm house beats "projects", and frankly isn't bad, period. Still, I think there needs to be a way to create a place for advancement even within that hierarchy, to get people out of poverty who are most likely to succeed given resources. As you say, throwing money isn't the best way, so why not centralize institutions?

I'm kind of in the "build vertically" camp; perhaps you build vertically, going for an arcology, and the more you do to maintain the facilities beyond the basics, to help in growing food, etc... you can get "extras" such as more space to live in. The problem there is that by definition it's going to tend toward insularity, so the "arcology" should be limited to home/food/water... and maybe a clinic. Work unrelated to its upkeep and improvement should be outside, or it's just a new kind of project.

In the end, I just don't see lots-to-homes as a viable option with a growing urban population density in the long-run. While we're floating dreams, we might as well float big ones. As reasonable as you proposals have been... it's hard to imagine them even being debated in a serious way in congress.

Oh... and wouldn't it be a nice way to get people the hell out of floodplains and other areas, and ease traffic?

 

[WhoWee]

I really don't know... I've never been married so... maybe?... I'd have to believe that 600 sq ft of warm house beats "projects", and frankly isn't bad, period. Still, I think there needs to be a way to create a place for advancement even within that hierarchy, to get people out of poverty who are most likely to succeed given resources. As you say, throwing money isn't the best way, so why not centralize institutions?

I'm kind of in the "build vertically" camp; perhaps you build vertically, going for an arcology, and the more you do to maintain the facilities beyond the basics, to help in growing food, etc... you can get "extras" such as more space to live in. The problem there is that by definition it's going to tend toward insularity, so the "arcology" should be limited to home/food/water... and maybe a clinic. Work unrelated to its upkeep and improvement should be outside, or it's just a new kind of project.

In the end, I just don't see lots-to-homes as a viable option with a growing urban population density in the long-run. While we're floating dreams, we might as well float big ones. As reasonable as you proposals have been... it's hard to imagine them even being debated in a serious way in congress.

Oh... and wouldn't it be a nice way to get people the hell out of floodplains and other areas, and ease traffic?

I'm talking about re-claiming the inner city lots that have been cleared. I've been monitoring a few cities in N.E. OH and W. PA. A quick example - Youngstown, OH has about 500 city lots available.

The lots have been bulldozed and cleared. The curb cuts are in, water, sewer, gas and electric are on site. Some of the lots are still landscaped and many have paved driveways. The lots are available for a few hundred dollars each. The cost of a 600 to 800 square foot pre-engineered structural insulated panel (very energy efficient) home - that can be heated with a hot water tank - is between $20,000 and $50,000 depending upon options.

Many of these sites are available in clusters - 2 to 4 block areas - as everyone has relocated to outlying areas. The vast majority are located close to bus lines and have easy access to shopping. These neighborhoods used to be the heart of the city - and were abandoned. Also worth mentioning - the crime left when the people living in the houses that were bulldozed moved away - mostly to apartments in the suburbs.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm talking about re-claiming the inner city lots that have been cleared. I've been monitoring a few cities in N.E. OH and W. PA. A quick example - Youngstown, OH has about 500 city lots available.

The lots have been bulldozed and cleared. The curb cuts are in, water, sewer, gas and electric are on site. Some of the lots are still landscaped and many have paved driveways. The lots are available for a few hundred dollars each. The cost of a 600 to 800 square foot pre-engineered structural insulated panel (very energy efficient) home - that can be heated with a hot water tank - is between $20,000 and $50,000 depending upon options.

Many of these sites are available in clusters - 2 to 4 block areas - as everyone has relocated to outlying areas. The vast majority are located close to bus lines and have easy access to shopping. These neighborhoods used to be the heart of the city - and were abandoned. Also worth mentioning - the crime left when the people living in the houses that were bulldozed moved away - mostly to apartments in the suburbs.

Funny how crime follows people eh?

Given what you've said, and I have no reason to doubt it... it's insane to leave them as they are. If I were the government (perish the thought), I'd look at this as a major solution to the impossible dream that Fanny and Freddy offered. A reasonable house, no dealing with banks, and utilities ready?... I can only imagine a government sitting on that upkeep with no benefits.