My Bike Path in the News

Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 11:53, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 1:24 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:09, Duane wrote:
On 30/07/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-29 11:37, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:37:22 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Disgusting. You may need more conservative city leader who don't let
things deteriorate that far.

Hmm. Lawn order is the solution?


To a large extent, yes. Blocking a traffic pathway without a permit is
illegal and a bike path is a traffic pathway.

Many people who travel there have said that New York is now remarkably
clean in most parts because NYPD started to take a hard stance on this
issue. Needless to say there is a lot of caterwauling about that from
the usual suspects but it seems to work.

Sacramento is almost the opposite. They have a mayor who promises to
throw lots of money at homelessness, lots of free stuff and whatnot. A
short time later he was publicly "wondering" about the fast rise in
homeless population. Duh! As a cyclist I could have told him why but I
am rather sure he wouln't listen. The number of homeless in the
Placerville area east of Sacramento that we encounter on the El Dorado
Trail bike path has seriously dropped. Guess why ...

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning states such
as California there is also the myriad rules and costs to developers
of housing. The result is that we now have many places where $1000/mo
in rent will not even get you a toilet with a bunk bed in there.
Therefore, a lot of people fall off the financial cliff. After some
couch-surfing they live in their car. Until they lose the car, then
they are on the street.



Left leaning? Last time I was in New Orleans I was shocked by the
number of tent farms under the overpasses. Louisiana has been bible
thumping conservative since the Dixiecrats in the 70s.


Then why did they elect Billy Nungesser, a Democrat, as governor?


Nungesser is a republican and was the Lt. Governor. You must mean Bel
Edwards.


Yes, sorry, I meant John Edwards. AFAIK Nungesser is still Lt.Governor.

AFAIR the legislature in Lousiana was pretty hardcore democratic until
the "big shellacking" happened eight years ago. For a while they even
had a republican governor but you can't turn a big ship on a dime. We
also had a republican govenor in CA (Schwarzenegger) but his hands were
tied.



However, it often boils down to cities themselves and their local
leadership. This is almost blatantly obvious where I live. Sacramento
has a (predictably) huges homeless problem while it is less of a
problem in cities east of there, such as the ones in El Dorado County.
Even left-leaning guys start realizing that now.

So what was your point? Jindal was governor for 2 terms before Edwards
which probably explains a lot of why a dem won this time. In Louisiana
politicians are crooks from both sides. The homeless problem has more
to do with the price of oil than social programs.


It has to do with social programs. This is one reason they flock to
cities because that's where a lot of the infrastructure is that was put
in place for them. It can hardly become more obvious than where I live.

[...]


Yeah maybe if they put their kids in cages they may not try to infest the
cities.
I think things are a lot more complex than blaming liberal policies.
Gentrification for example.

--
duane

Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.


You ever been to Houston? I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up stakes.

--
duane

On 2018-07-30 14:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning
states such as California there is also the myriad rules and
costs to developers of housing. The result is that we now have
many places where $1000/mo in rent will not even get you a
toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore, a lot of people
fall off the financial cliff. After some couch-surfing they
live in their car. Until they lose the car, then they are on
the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market
not development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in most cities is
old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in
general and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in
its infinite wisdom is demanding that every new building must have
solar. That will add at least $10k to the construction of the space
that would house a family. This borders on daftness.

Why? $10K is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a house,
and it probably comes with tax rebates, the federal ITC and whatever
the California commies are willing to hand out.


That's already after all that. It's the net impact. There are many more
drops in the bucket. Common wisdom says that once a certain numvber of
drops dropped into a bucket the bucket runneth over.


... Plus, it results in
cost savings for energy and is not polluting like your dreadful
pellet stove.


Just like our wood stove it is an EPA-certified stove, no smoke, no
smell and it burns wood that would other wise be wasted. Plus for the
warmingists it is almost CO2 neutral. Environmentally a very good thing.
The only negative side of pellet stoves is their poor design quality and
the resulting number of hours I have to invest in maintenance. My
favorite job ... not. The occasional auger jam is great fun as well.

What do you guys use for heat?


And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the
other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new homes, it
actually reduces your energy bills and pays for itself over time and
produces a net savings over its life expectancy, at least according
to the literature.


Amortization takes well over a decade and does not mitigate the upfront
cost which will be plowed into the rent, all of it. Renters who live
paycheck to paycheck (plus the occasional payday loan) only care about
the here and now, they do not have the luxury of thinking about long
term amortization.


If it were truly bad, you can bet the building
industry lobby would crush it.


They tried to but didn't succeed. So they just slap it onto the home
price or the rent.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-07-30 14:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 10:56 AM, Joerg wrote:


No, all I am saying is that if a person has or retains the ability to
be nice to other people they have a good chance of turning their
misery around. Like this guy did who was on our local TV yesterday:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/28/homele...of-job-offers/

Decency goes a long ways and that applies to every person, including
the homeless.

The guy you highlighted there has a bachelor's degree in MIS. He claims
to work in about a dozen programming languages and several environments.
He claims some pretty high-tech job experience. So I doubt very much
he's a typical homeless person, and I doubt very much that most homeless
people could get the results he did.

As usual, you think you have ultra-simple solutions to complex problems.


I personally know people who have pulled themselves up by their
bootstraps and got out of it. People who had developed alcohol problems
and literally slept under bridges. People who now own rental places as
an investment. It is possible. Not for everyone but for more than you think.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part of the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/

Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could
make that case easily.

Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2018-07-30 15:20, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/30/2018 3:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to
Texas. Lots of jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it
does cut the housing expenses in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not
part of the "smart ones"?



I wouldn't know from smart but ten years ago Joerg could make that case
easily.


About 10 years ago a longhaul trucker who hauled moving trailers
complained that they had to do most of the return trips to CA empty.


Texas and California are no longer the extreme examples:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...-state-map.png


Texas is still where the tech folks are going and also business people
with money.

Another common destination for people I know is Idaho. I could not drag
my wife's bag there though because of the harsh winters. Some people I
know who moved there are engineers but most are retirees.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 2:49:07 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 08:45, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:56:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

snip

It's not just people with mental problems. In left-leaning
states such as California there is also the myriad rules and
costs to developers of housing. The result is that we now have
many places where $1000/mo in rent will not even get you a
toilet with a bunk bed in there. Therefore, a lot of people
fall off the financial cliff. After some couch-surfing they
live in their car. Until they lose the car, then they are on
the street.

You need to learn some economics. Rents are driven by the market
not development costs, ...


Not true when regulatory hurdles become onerous.



... particularly since much of the rental stock in most cities is
old construction. ...


Just to give you one example of many: We have a serious affordable
housing shortage in California. Or rather, a housing shortage in
general and not just the "affordable" kind. Now body politicus in
its infinite wisdom is demanding that every new building must have
solar. That will add at least $10k to the construction of the space
that would house a family. This borders on daftness.

Why? $10K is a drop in the bucket when it comes to building a house,
and it probably comes with tax rebates, the federal ITC and whatever
the California commies are willing to hand out.


That's already after all that. It's the net impact. There are many more
drops in the bucket. Common wisdom says that once a certain numvber of
drops dropped into a bucket the bucket runneth over.


... Plus, it results in
cost savings for energy and is not polluting like your dreadful
pellet stove.


Just like our wood stove it is an EPA-certified stove, no smoke, no
smell and it burns wood that would other wise be wasted. Plus for the
warmingists it is almost CO2 neutral. Environmentally a very good thing.
The only negative side of pellet stoves is their poor design quality and
the resulting number of hours I have to invest in maintenance. My
favorite job ... not. The occasional auger jam is great fun as well.


What do you guys use for heat?

Gas radiant -- I've got an over-grown hot water heater qua "boiler". No duct work. NO air conditioning. Gak! It was fine until global warming and all the consecutive days over 90F. We have a little rolling air conditioner or we hide in our daylight basement which doubles as our summer home. It's a nice space, but I miss the good old days of two or three stinky hot days and then mild summers in the 80s.



And unlike the giant, never-used Jacuzzi tub and the
other supposed creature comforts that used to come with new homes, it
actually reduces your energy bills and pays for itself over time and
produces a net savings over its life expectancy, at least according
to the literature.


Amortization takes well over a decade and does not mitigate the upfront
cost which will be plowed into the rent, all of it. Renters who live
paycheck to paycheck (plus the occasional payday loan) only care about
the here and now, they do not have the luxury of thinking about long
term amortization.

Well, for home buyers, if we're talking about amortization, a change of fifty basis points in the mortgage rate has a far greater impact -- and you never recoup that cost in other savings. Home buyers get quite a deal with solar since the money comes back over time.

For renters, its loss to the owners and not the renters since rent is set by market forces and not building costs -- unless the cost is so high that there is no building. For multi-family new construction, solar is a half-a-drop in the bucket. A teeny, tiny cost for new construction and maybe a selling point for the right demographic. In Portland, we have apartment buildings with wind turbines. https://www.flickr.com/photos/davere...&new_session=1 Total chick-magnet, "hey, I live in the building with wind turbines . . . would you like to come over for a drink?" I bet the renters even get a break on their electricity bill. Better than granite counter-tops and stainless steel appliances.



If it were truly bad, you can bet the building
industry lobby would crush it.


They tried to but didn't succeed. So they just slap it onto the home
price or the rent.

Well, it looks like the building industry saw it coming and worked with the regulators. https://www.builderonline.com/design...olar-mandate_c

-- Jay Beattie.

Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 14:46, Duane wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-07-30 13:59, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses
in half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?


We can afford to live here plus I am gradually retiring. What I mean are
people in the middle of their careers who do not have high-tech
high-Dollar jobs. Those are much better off in Houston.

Mountain biking is the pits in TX. However, that doesn't matter when one
has to provide a roof over the head of a family and food on the table.


You ever been to Houston?


Sure. And I've got three clients there. I have not seen homeless issues
anywhere close to what we see here in the Sacramento region. Part of the
reason may be that they invest their money less in wanton welfare but in
more useful things such as a sobriety center.


I spent weekends at my friends’ place in Galena Park for quite a while. I
expect you don’t know the town that well. Houston is a large city.


... I haven’t noticed any shortage of homeless
there. The lots of jobs idea is not unlike south Louisiana tied to the oil
market so it might be wise to investigate a bit before pulling up stakes.


Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.homelesshouston.org/2017-...-homelessness/

Why is it that their trend is exactly the opposite of Sacramento?


A decrease in homeless in one year isn’t a trend. I doubt that the answer
is as simple as you think.

--
duane

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:59:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/30/2018 1:34 PM, Joerg wrote:


Some people are fed up and the smart ones are moving to Texas. Lots of
jobs, not quite as nice outdoors but it does cut the housing expenses in
half.

I haven't heard about you moving to Texas. So are you not part of the
"smart ones"?

And if you aren't part of the "smart ones" does that mean that you ARE
a member of the "Stupid Ones"?

--

Cheers,

John B.