quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Solar is the answer ?

Didn't say that, did I.

I said it's feasible. I pointed out there are many solar homes. And so there are.

But since you bring it up--91 square miles of sunlight would power the entire U.S. More importantly, though, is that the problem with power transmission is transporting it to where you want it. That's not a problem with solar, as sunlight is everywhere.

You're using an outdated 60s argument. The state of the industry is far different than it was.

Here, we use wind power and hydroelectric (especially hydroelectric). 20% of New York's power is from renewable sources.

But....at least you got in your anti-liberal rant. Did you cum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Oh there is a LOT more going on than the article is saying.

First, if you don't like rules or people telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, don't buy a house in a subdivision with a homeowner's association.  They will nearly always have additional covenants about what you can and cannot do.

Second, what happened to the roommate? 

Third, sorry to say but if all you can find is a minimum-wage job, you might have to take a second job.  Since she did not have children, this would have been a workable alternative until she got on her feet again.

Fourth, electricity isn't that expensive!  Shut the lights off, stuff the fridge with jugs of water, there's lots of ways to keep electricity costs low.

Fifth,  talk to your creditors!  Let the electric company know your situation, they'll work with you.  They won't work with you if you decide to steal it instead.  Ask for assistance.  No one is gonna offer it.  No one.  If you need help, you have to ask.

This isn't a matter of evil government trying to take away anyone's rights.  Its about an irresponsible person trying to blame everyone else for the poor chocies she made.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrMister

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Oh there is a LOT more going on than the article is saying.

First, if you don't like rules or people telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, don't buy a house in a subdivision with a homeowner's association.  They will nearly always have additional covenants about what you can and cannot do.

Second, what happened to the roommate? 

Third, sorry to say but if all you can find is a minimum-wage job, you might have to take a second job.  Since she did not have children, this would have been a workable alternative until she got on her feet again.

Fourth, electricity isn't that expensive!  Shut the lights off, stuff the fridge with jugs of water, there's lots of ways to keep electricity costs low.

Fifth,  talk to your creditors!  Let the electric company know your situation, they'll work with you.  They won't work with you if you decide to steal it instead.  Ask for assistance.  No one is gonna offer it.  No one.  If you need help, you have to ask.

This isn't a matter of evil government trying to take away anyone's rights.  Its about an irresponsible person trying to blame everyone else for the poor chocies she made.

I absolutely agree with you that there are a myriad of lessons one can learn from this debacle, and there appears to be more under the surface of what the news articles are informing us about. But it certainly is my opinion that the government had no right to do what they did, regardless period.

If you, or anyone else would be so kind, please explain to me how the actions of the city were warranted. The following is what John Stossel wrote in his article:

When the cops learned she had no electricity, they notified a code enforcement manager, who said: "Once we received notification from police that she had been without electricity for some time... we were very concerned about health and safety "... "We explained to her that the panels weren't enough to sustain a quality of life.” Stevens was given 24 hours to get electric service to her home. When she failed to do that, the bureaucrats condemned her home. Stevens moved into her car. Officials say if they had known Stevens' predicament they would have offered help. But why were they even involved with what happens inside her four walls? Oh that's right. They were concerned about her health and safety.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrMister

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

Oh there is a LOT more going on than the article is saying.

First, if you don't like rules or people telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, don't buy a house in a subdivision with a homeowner's association.  They will nearly always have additional covenants about what you can and cannot do.

Second, what happened to the roommate? 

Third, sorry to say but if all you can find is a minimum-wage job, you might have to take a second job.  Since she did not have children, this would have been a workable alternative until she got on her feet again.

Fourth, electricity isn't that expensive!  Shut the lights off, stuff the fridge with jugs of water, there's lots of ways to keep electricity costs low.

Fifth,  talk to your creditors!  Let the electric company know your situation, they'll work with you.  They won't work with you if you decide to steal it instead.  Ask for assistance.  No one is gonna offer it.  No one.  If you need help, you have to ask.

This isn't a matter of evil government trying to take away anyone's rights.  Its about an irresponsible person trying to blame everyone else for the poor chocies she made.

I absolutely agree with you that there are a myriad of lessons one can learn from this debacle, and there appears to be more under the surface of what the news articles are informing us about. But it certainly is my opinion that the government had no right to do what they did, regardless period.

If you, or anyone else would be so kind, please explain to me how the actions of the city were warranted. The following is what John Stossel wrote in his article:

When the cops learned she had no electricity, they notified a code enforcement manager, who said: "Once we received notification from police that she had been without electricity for some time... we were very concerned about health and safety "... "We explained to her that the panels weren't enough to sustain a quality of life.” Stevens was given 24 hours to get electric service to her home. When she failed to do that, the bureaucrats condemned her home. Stevens moved into her car. Officials say if they had known Stevens' predicament they would have offered help. But why were they even involved with what happens inside her four walls? Oh that's right. They were concerned about her health and safety.

Seeing how the article is slanted, I doubt we are getting a clear picture.  If in fact the city condemed the house in 24 short hours, that seems terribleand I would agree they did not have the right.   But the article says she was given TWO notices prior to the cops coming.  She chose to ignore the notices.  Had she answered the notices, explained her situation, asked for assistance, maybe there would have been a different outcome.  She didn't just go without a refridgerator and the cops showed up one day and condemed her house the next.  It was a long process.  A process she chose not to work within.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

you are assuming now. what is the statute or ordinance in that town?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, cute, but welcome to the real world, and society, but I assume you attend city council meetings religiously.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

you are assuming now. what is the statute or ordinance in that town?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

There most likely IS a law prohibiting anyone from whipping someones ass.  In most jurisdictions is is called battery, depending on the severity of the whipping, it goes up from there.



Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Not really. A municipality can make almost any rule they wish. Home owners associations even more so.

If you live someplace the onus is on you to be aware of any laws or building codes.


Jeff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

A municipality can make almost any rule they wish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Within the context, I live In Illinois, specifically in Cook Co. In Cook co. you must have conduit in your walls for wiring. If you do not you are not up to code. If it was discovered you didn't have conduit they would make you change it. If you didn't they would condemn your house as unsafe.

In many other places it is quite permissible to have romex or another substitute. That don't mean shit. I live in Cook Co.

If I want an out house because indoor plumbing offends Me, they can  stop that too.

What part of all this don't you understand?