Is It Over For The Republicans?

[nutzbuster 7]

Get in line, baby, get in line.

Don't want to be mean, but....

Well, I am pretty liberal...

Think they have medication for this?

No, I wouldn't call you mean. As for the party in general, though, you can't really top serving a wife with divorce papers while she's in the hospital getting cancer surgery and then going to Washington to call for re-opening orphanages.

McCain was never my choice. Ever.

[hblask 1]

I'd say more that when you have projects like this in your tax base that you have better options than raising taxes when infrastructure projects come along that need to be done. So in some respects, you could say that having these projects allows you to keep property taxes lower instead of raising them when there's a maintenance project that needs to be done. If the government is allowed to keep a rainy day fund then when you have economic downturns such as now, you don't have to make cuts in essential services or raise taxes. To me community based projects are the essence of smaller government. The more community based projects that return a profit, the less the community depends on the state and feds. That gives more independence to those local communities. To me the stupidest thing that both Republicans & Libertarians do is to block such projects. By doing so, you only increase your local community's dependence on the state and federal monies with all the strings that come with them. This is the exact opposite of the result you desire which is less state and federal involvement in local communites.

You seem to believe that if a local govt gets more money, they spend the same amount but charge less in taxes. That's not what happens at all. Instead, they expand the scope of what they do. It may be intrusive zoning or licensing laws, it may be a new park that requires more taxes in the future. Giving politicians money and power is like giving car keys and liquor to teenagers.

[Nimue1995 1]

You seem to believe that if a local govt gets more money, they spend the same amount but charge less in taxes. That's not what happens at all. Instead, they expand the scope of what they do. It may be intrusive zoning or licensing laws, it may be a new park that requires more taxes in the future. Giving politicians money and power is like giving car keys and liquor to teenagers.

Actually I believe that the local politicians are much more responsive to the people than the ones at the state or federal level. This is because a recall is much easier to accomplish. Either that or simply voting them out of office. So no I don't agree with you on this. We've just been through this in the Bitterroot where the county commissioners adopted a Growth Policy. Now mind you this wasn't even zoning. It was a general growth plan for the valley which was an advisory document at best. Well an initiative passed this election that repealed that Growth Policy. So the people in the Bitterroot can be reassured that they can still put their little trashy trailers on their acre of land without worry. And they can still build a stinky mushroom plant next door. And they can subdivide their property to their hearts content. This is an example of local politics in action. As you may have guessed, I don't like it,lol. For one thing, there's nothing in place now to assure that when a subdivision goes in there's even a minimal paved road or money for infrastructure and schools to handle the influx. Here in the Bitterroot most of the residents are still attached to the idea of the wild & free west with no rules on what a person can do with their private property even if it infringes on their neighbor's enjoyment of theirs.

[hblask 1]

Actually I believe that the local politicians are much more responsive to the people than the ones at the state or federal level. This is because a recall is much easier to accomplish. Either that or simply voting them out of office.

I agree that this is a much better idea to do local projects at the local level. Not only for the reasons you mention, but because moving to the next community over is relatively simple, but where would US residents go? France? Hah!

For one thing, there's nothing in place now to assure that when a subdivision goes in there's even a minimal paved road or money for infrastructure and schools to handle the influx.

What a low opinion of humanity you must have.

Here in the Bitterroot most of the residents are still attached to the idea of the wild & free west with no rules on what a person can do with their private property even if it infringes on their neighbor's enjoyment of theirs.

I think it more likely that your notion of infringe is different than yours. An ugly trailer next door is not infringement. Dumping garbage on your property is.

[Nimue1995 1]

I agree that this is a much better idea to do local projects at the local level. Not only for the reasons you mention, but because moving to the next community over is relatively simple, but where would US residents go? France? Hah!What a low opinion of humanity you must have.I think it more likely that your notion of infringe is different than yours. An ugly trailer next door is not infringement. Dumping garbage on your property is.

I think I'll go out and take a picture of the subdivision down the way here. There is a drop-off edge to the asphalt that is about 5 inches or so with no markings, no edges, no nothing. And nary a sidewalk to be seen. This was because of the growth policy in place that they even put asphalt in. Now they can just leave it a dirt road. There is a contractor here in the valley that builds as cheap and shoddy as he can get away with. Since since there is no zoning and minimal building regulation in place he's making a bundle here. By the way, if you've ever been next to a mushroom plant, believe me the smell is an infringement on the enjoyment of the neighbor's property. And when the wind comes from that direction, it's an infringement on mine too (I'm about 3 miles away).

[hblask 1]

I think I'll go out and take a picture of the subdivision down the way here. There is a drop-off edge to the asphalt that is about 5 inches or so with no markings, no edges, no nothing. And nary a sidewalk to be seen. This was because of the growth policy in place that they even put asphalt in. Now they can just leave it a dirt road. There is a contractor here in the valley that builds as cheap and shoddy as he can get away with. Since since there is no zoning and minimal building regulation in place he's making a bundle here. By the way, if you've ever been next to a mushroom plant, believe me the smell is an infringement on the enjoyment of the neighbor's property. And when the wind comes from that direction, it's an infringement on mine too (I'm about 3 miles away).

So you don't think poorer people should be allowed to live anywhere? Only people who can afford the best of everything should be allowed to own houses? Because that's what you are implying here: any development that can't afford the same standards of living as rich people should not be allowed to exist. Really? And people say libertarians lack compassion? Hah! (PS Don't start with the "why can't we have cheap houses AND everything nice", cuz that argument is a non-starter).As far as smell being an infringement, that's a gray area, one that needs to be settled by cooperation, mediation, and the legal system. Certainly if someone wants to build something exceptionally smelly, the people who are affected should be compensated. In MN we have the opposite problem. As the suburbs expand, people are building neighborhoods next to pig farms that have been there for 100 years. When the dumb city folk move in and realize that pigs stink, they sue the farmers. In that case, I can't imagine the n00bs being compensated for their stupidity.

[Nimue1995 1]

So you don't think poorer people should be allowed to live anywhere? Only people who can afford the best of everything should be allowed to own houses? Because that's what you are implying here: any development that can't afford the same standards of living as rich people should not be allowed to exist. Really? And people say libertarians lack compassion? Hah! (PS Don't start with the "why can't we have cheap houses AND everything nice", cuz that argument is a non-starter).As far as smell being an infringement, that's a gray area, one that needs to be settled by cooperation, mediation, and the legal system. Certainly if someone wants to build something exceptionally smelly, the people who are affected should be compensated. In MN we have the opposite problem. As the suburbs expand, people are building neighborhoods next to pig farms that have been there for 100 years. When the dumb city folk move in and realize that pigs stink, they sue the farmers. In that case, I can't imagine the n00bs being compensated for their stupidity.

don't you believe that poor people deserve better than shoddy cheap fall-apart houses? That's what YOU'RE saying. I don't object to mobile homes or reasonable development. I do object to hit & run development that leaves the homeowners, schools and county government to pick up the bill for a shoddy cheapo development. You've got to realize that it's only in the last 10 years that you even had to have a perk test in order to put in a septic system. And when that happened people were up in arms that it was an infringement on their property rights. And this is how every new idea or reasonable regulation is greeted in this county. LIke I've said before, you'd love it here H. It's a libertarian's paradise. But I've seen how much damage a no regulation on anything approach can do. Some idiot guy builds in a floodway and then expects to have his house rescued during a flood. It's this kind of crap that causes me to not be the libertarian that you are.

[hblask 1]

don't you believe that poor people deserve better than shoddy cheap fall-apart houses? That's what YOU'RE saying.

Would you rather they had cheap houses or no houses? Remember, this is the real world, not some fantasy world where a bureaucrat can wave their magic wand and provide cheap houses with all the perks of expensive houses. So yeah, if they decide that a shoddy house is better than sleeping in a storm drain, I'm all for it. Furthermore, if not for all the bureaucratic obstacles in the way (in most cities in this country), cheap housing with high quality would be available. To give an example, MN has about a zillion codes for builders. Only a tiny fraction of them are related to the actual safety of the structure. And city laws are generally worse than state laws. When I lived in NJ, cities were constantly being sued for not allowing "affordable housing" developments.

I don't object to mobile homes or reasonable development. I do object to hit and run development that leaves the homeowners, schools and county government to pick up the bill for a shoddy cheapo development.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Homeowners should of course be left with the costs of the property they purchase. Schools, as far as I know, do not have additional costs based on whether the child lives in an expensive house or a cheap house. And local govt has road and utility costs, but since gravel roads are cheaper to maintain than pavement, it seems like the development you described in your earlier post would be a bargain for the city.

You've got to realize that it's only in the last 10 years that you even had to have a perk test in order to put in a septic system.

This is a public health issue, and is appropriately regulated. People who object to limitations being placed on their ability to put human waste into the water supply are kooks.

Some idiot guy builds in a floodway and then expects to have his house rescued during a flood.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If someone does something to cause their own property to flood, then that person needs to repair it themselves. If their project causes someone else to flood, then the person who caused it should be sued, although hopefully it will be caught before it reaches the flood level, and again, this is an appropriate area for legislation. Again, infringing on the rights of others is a proper area for legislation; being stupid and wrecking your own stuff is not. Curiously, most flood damage in the US in recent years is due to decades of flawed federal and local water policy.

[Nimue1995 1]

Would you rather they had cheap houses or no houses? Remember, this is the real world, not some fantasy world where a bureaucrat can wave their magic wand and provide cheap houses with all the perks of expensive houses. So yeah, if they decide that a shoddy house is better than sleeping in a storm drain, I'm all for it. So you're all for houses that are barely liveable for the poor. You're all for the cheap and dirty as far as developers & contractors are concerned. And by the way, these houses he built are no more affordable than the other houses around once the repairs to make them liveable are done. Like repairing wiring that doesn't work, repairing cheap linoleum that rips after 6 months of use, cheap walls and attics with minimal insulation in a Montana winter. Sorry but even the poor deserve better than that. And these houses aren't cheap enough for the poor to afford them anyway so that point is moot. Furthermore, if not for all the bureaucratic obstacles in the way (in most cities in this country), cheap housing with high quality would be available. To give an example, MN has about a zillion codes for builders. Only a tiny fraction of them are related to the actual safety of the structure. And city laws are generally worse than state laws. When I lived in NJ, cities were constantly being sued for not allowing "affordable housing" developments.Sorry but minimal safety codes ARE necessary or you get dumbass cheap developers like I mentioned above. The guy is notorious in the valley here. But people moving in from elsewhere aren't clued in to his development modis operandi. I'm not sure what you mean here. Homeowners should of course be left with the costs of the property they purchase. Schools, as far as I know, do not have additional costs based on whether the child lives in an expensive house or a cheap house. And local govt has road and utility costs, but since gravel roads are cheaper to maintain than pavement, it seems like the development you described in your earlier post would be a bargain for the city.We pay in higher costs when these developments go in and you're right it doesn't matter whether the child lives in a cheap house or an expensive house but it does matter if the developer doesn't pay some kind of mitigation for the cost the school has for the additional kids that come out of that development. Cows don't go to school but kids do. So every time a ranch is turned into a development with each house having it's little acre of land, an increase in school size and cost goes with it. And the people who are already here don't have any more money to pay those extra taxes than anyone else. And by the way, if you think the county maintains any but the main highways in this valley, you're dreaming. This is a public health issue, and is appropriately regulated. People who object to limitations being placed on their ability to put human waste into the water supply are kooks.Lol that's what I'm trying to tell you. People here ARE kooks when it comes to ANY kind of regulation of their property even if it were a public health issue. You want Libertarian, you've got to live here,lol. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If someone does something to cause their own property to flood, then that person needs to repair it themselves. If their project causes someone else to flood, then the person who caused it should be sued, although hopefully it will be caught before it reaches the flood level, and again, this is an appropriate area for legislation. Again, infringing on the rights of others is a proper area for legislation; being stupid and wrecking your own stuff is not. Curiously, most flood damage in the US in recent years is due to decades of flawed federal and local water policy.Lol well it doesn't matter whether he was an idiot enough to build in a flood way, come time for it to flood this spring, he'll have people risking their lives to save him and his family from their foolishness. The most surprising thing is there actually is regulation against building in a floodway. But so far he's fighting it out in court with the county so he won't have to move his house. He was told a number of times, he couldn't put the house there before he did it but he went ahead anyway. And now he wants the county, or the log home builder to pay to move it if he has to have it moved. But he's first fighting even having to move it. Guess if it washes away this spring, the point will be moot. I just think it's stupid that the county even has to fight him on this.

[hblask 1]

So you're all for houses that are barely liveable for the poor. You're all for the cheap and dirty as far as developers & contractors are concerned. And by the way, these houses he built are no more affordable than the other houses around once the repairs to make them liveable are done. Like repairing wiring that doesn't work, repairing cheap linoleum that rips after 6 months of use, cheap walls and attics with minimal insulation in a Montana winter. Sorry but even the poor deserve better than that. And these houses aren't cheap enough for the poor to afford them anyway so that point is moot.

No, I'm not "for" anyone having a rough time, but this is reality, where supply and demand still matter. And the simple fact is that if you artificially inflate the price of houses by forcing builders to build things that low income customers don't care about, then you will price some people out of the market.I grew up in a house exactly like the ones you describe, and frankly, I wish they could've made it cheaper. We had 13 kids in a house that was maybe 1000 sq ft. If the house had been any more "high quality", we would've had maybe 700 sq. ft. And frankly, according to modern building codes, we wouldn't have had anywhere to live -- we couldn't have afforded even the cheapest house built to today's codes. Again, it's not a choice of poor people living in a McMansion or a crappy house; it's poor people living in the streets or in a crappy house. I lived in a bad house, and frankly, it wasn't as terrible as you make it sound. (And yes, we had crappy linoleum that needed to be replaced frequently, and yes, it was still cheaper than most alternatives.) So no, while I don't prefer crappy houses for anyone, it's a lot better than homelessness. Yes, life has tradeoffs. If you ever find a way to eliminate that fact, you'll be a zillionaire. In the meantime, we have to make the best of it.

Sorry but minimal safety codes ARE necessary or you get dumbass cheap developers like I mentioned above. The guy is notorious in the valley here. But people moving in from elsewhere aren't clued in to his development modis operandi.

Safety codes are one thing, but only about 1% of the housing code has to do with safety. Here in MN, for example, houses have to be air tight. Think about what that means. First, every wall has to be wrapped in plastic. Every joint, every pipe, every wire, has to be caulked at every intersection. And then, because houses would collapse if they were completely air tight, you have to add several thousand dollars worth of equipment to the furnace to exchange the air. In other words, you have to spend upwards of 10K to get the exact same effect as buying crappy windows. Not to mention that these laws are creating a generation of houses with mold and moisture problems that cost a large fraction of the original house cost to repair. If a developer decided to build a development of cookie-cutter ultra-efficient single-family homes, they couldn't do it, because zoning codes would drive the cost up so much that most of the target market would be priced out. The list of non-safety related items in the housing code is insane -- pretty much every single item in the house is artificially expensive.

We pay in higher costs when these developments go in and you're right it doesn't matter whether the child lives in a cheap house or an expensive house but it does matter if the developer doesn't pay some kind of mitigation for the cost the school has for the additional kids that come out of that development. Cows don't go to school but kids do. So every time a ranch is turned into a development with each house having it's little acre of land, an increase in school size and cost goes with it. And the people who are already here don't have any more money to pay those extra taxes than anyone else. And by the way, if you think the county maintains any but the main highways in this valley, you're dreaming.

Schools are normally financed by property taxes. 100 acres of farmland generates less property taxes than 100 acres of residential development. You're on pretty shaky ground unless Montana has some method of financing schools that is the opposite of every other place in the US.And if the roads aren't maintained by the county, then you *really* can't claim it adds costs, can you?

Lol that's what I'm trying to tell you. People here ARE kooks when it comes to ANY kind of regulation of their property even if it were a public health issue. You want Libertarian, you've got to live here,lol.

I don't think you know what libertarian is.

Lol well it doesn't matter whether he was an idiot enough to build in a flood way, come time for it to flood this spring, he'll have people risking their lives to save him and his family from their foolishness. The most surprising thing is there actually is regulation against building in a floodway. But so far he's fighting it out in court with the county so he won't have to move his house. He was told a number of times, he couldn't put the house there before he did it but he went ahead anyway. And now he wants the county, or the log home builder to pay to move it if he has to have it moved. But he's first fighting even having to move it. Guess if it washes away this spring, the point will be moot. I just think it's stupid that the county even has to fight him on this.

Well, that's just stupid, and again, it's certainly not libertarian. I'm not even sure your examples are anarchist. They're just plain nutty misanthropism.

[Nimue1995 1]

What building codes there are here are pretty darn minimal. And inspections are almost non-existent. So yes your crappy house can be built here H. What I object to is the fact that it still gets priced out of the range of the poor people you desire to be able live in them. Basically, the developer just gets to pocket more cash for a shoddy product. And for the most part, I really don't object to the fact the it's only the basic minimum codes here. What irritates me is the fact that the shoddy product gets priced only slightly cheaper than the well-made product and the developer just gets more profit for it. Believe me this guy I'm talking about doesn't build those houses cheaper to make them more affordable for poor people. He builds them cheaper to make more money. It's basic greed at work.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Sorry if I misrepresented your position in any way, Henry. I didn't mean to if I did; I was just trying to illustrate the difference between whether a council should choose a profitable investment even if it means pushing government into new areas, versus passing up what you know to be a sound investment for the sake of smaller-government principles. Certainly, our city council probably did grow a little fatter from our theater's tax revenues, but they've also kept the lid on property taxes here as well, so they've split the difference.As for mushroom plants, all I can say is I've driven past them and was moved to blurt out, "Jeez, is this where Pennsylvania stores all its corpses or WHAT?" And I'm used to farm smells. There's one town in PA with mushroom houses lining the outskirts. We call it Stinktown, whatever its real name is, and it is beyond me how anyone could live amid that 24/7 reek.But as wedded as I am to my argument that Republicans govern badly because it's their philosophy to do so, and their past two decades of bankrupting the government was part of a (fairly amorphous) plan to PREVENT it from being efficient and effective, I was also much more enjoying the kink discussion than the Obama/press stuff. Just for BigD's titillation (tit elation, as I prefer to spell it), I'm actually not domineering. Rather the opposite -- I'm too Zen and laid back to really crack the whip. But let's just say I've tasted the rocky road as well as the vanilla. I couldn't live in a kink world either. I'm not sure anybody can except hopeless f***-ups. Frankly, it would get boring after a while -- no matter how wild it is, if it's always the same thing, it's boring. But for a little treat now and again, well, I wouldn't mind if Supreme Leader LLY broke out the paddle now and then for his Shakespeare-patroness First Lady. Assuming he doesn't blow the world up first, of course.

[hblask 1]

Sorry if I misrepresented your position in any way, Henry. I didn't mean to if I did; I was just trying to illustrate the difference between whether a council should choose a profitable investment even if it means pushing government into new areas, versus passing up what you know to be a sound investment for the sake of smaller-government principles. Certainly, our city council probably did grow a little fatter from our theater's tax revenues, but they've also kept the lid on property taxes here as well, so they've split the difference.

I'm not sure you misrepresented me, the discussions on this board have given me more nuanced principles. But I still don't believe that city council members (have you seen these losers?) are any better at picking good investments than successful business people.

I couldn't live in a kink world either. I'm not sure anybody can except hopeless f***-ups. Frankly, it would get boring after a while -- no matter how wild it is

Comedian Doug Stanhope talks about this, culminating with the line "More holes! That's what you women need, more holes!".Either he's an extremely good actor/comedian/writer, or he's tried everything on earth a couple dozen times.