West Coast Homelessness

So is there a solution? I know many will blame the democrats or politicians in general. While it does seems to be more prevalent in democratic ran states, that is not the whole problem obviously.

We all know throwing money at it, does not solve a damn thing. We know building more housing areas and sanctioning them to specific areas of the city do not solve it either. Now you have crazy diseases coming back from 100 years ago.

So what's the WakeWorld community thing is the step 1-5 solution to start changing it? Can't just say it is a mental illness issue and call it done. Can't just say they are addicts, let them rot. Thousands of people try to help the problem and trillions of dollars are spent, yet it gets significantly worse each year.

I was reading where LA has spent like $3trillion in the last 5 years towards the issue, and it has got 25% worse and like 60-70% of the population is actually homeless. While the are all jsut numbers for the media, you wild think $3 trillion could go a long way towards a solution. I see Portland is in the same state of affairs, but with less money and its growing rapidly.

So let's hear it? How does our country fix these issues?

Pretty sure that LA didn't spend $3T in 5 years on anything, much less homeless people. Now maybe if you divided that amount by 1000, you would have a more accurate figure.

Maybe start by not passing out needles, giving drug users a safe haven to do drugs and start putting the money towards rehab. change the laws, enforce the new ones. and get people help instead of letting to grow and fester. Or just ship all the homeless and drug users to LA, quarantine the area, and make it a dead zone.

Its common sense, with a common sense fix. you cannot continue to allow it to be mainstream , then complain that the problem is out of control. there are very basic common sense ways to fix it, but its been allowed to run rapid for so long, its now out of control. just needed to stop it when it started and the problem would have been 1000x less than it is very sad

First is to recognize that not all "homeless" are created equal and stop pretending everyone is a victim in the same way. IMO there are three batches...those that truly have mental problem and need help, those that are addicted and don't want help, and those that are either just down on their luck or don't want to participate in society.

Rather than provide service for those that need it, run out those that don't want it and have to spend so much time and energy on those two that that the last batch gets left behind...it will never get better. We have created a society where homeless are attracted to the areas where the freebies are.

Used to be get help or get out...now it is welcome to our city, its not your fault.

Santa Cruz is the worst where streets are rampant with "hippie homeless" that just wanna shoot up rater deal with life and LEO's hands are tied.

...meanwhile the state park next to me is littered with needles as I walk my dog that some collation is distributing for free in the name of "rehabilitation". It is a sad state that society lets these conditions thrive in these days of lack of personal responsibility.

Homelessness can happen to anybody ,your live can chage in a sec.A Drunk driver jumping the center divider or a guy trying to kill himself almost killing you and hurting you so bad you have to have a double hip replacement,,,NOT everyone can have an Ocean View ,,,So this is what needs to be done ,theres so much vacant land in Cali specially in the dessert ,you make these PODS and make citys for these people ,have a community kitchen where people work to feed everyone that need feeding,Community bathrooms and showers ,,,Workers to help the people that need it ,give these people something to live for instead of hanging out on the streets ,,,Get these people Farming Something even if its HEMP,,,give the a reason to feel like there contributing ,,,LET ALONE THE LANDLORDS ARE RIPPING CALI OFF ,I SAW TODAY 2,275 IN H.B. FOR A 1 BEDROOM 1 BATH,,,GET REAL

This is a really good documentary. At the end, they show what Rhode Island is doing about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

Show me where I can get that pod for $199. I want to buy one.

1) They decriminalized drug use and even drug possession
2) Cops can not contact or interface with the people who do
3) This was the tool that the state had to evaluate individuals in order to get the legal process moving to get them the help they needed
4) There is zero personal responsibility required unless you are one of the producers, then if you are the producer you literally have to be a full time lawyer just to breath air in the state
5) The cities are not required to have housing for all the workers they bring in. The facilities are now able to be packed to the brim with high density officer workers while there is no mandate that a city has to have housing for the workers and the known amount of secondary workers that support the primary wage earners in the the typical trickle down effect

The "drugs" don't hurt anyone crowd is losing the argument again like they have in the entire history of society. This only took less than half a decade in kalifornia for it to come to fruition after the prop 48 (?) passed.

Housing shortages caused by the lack of mandates for housing for the workers is destroying the quality of life. That leads to the parents not being home with the kids for an additional 2 to 4 hours a day while they commute. Does not leave time for kids to be put into after school activities that keeps them from being raised by their friends which historically leads to drug and alcohol abuse and joining gangs. Also lack of social skills in general. If they are not getting street education, they are raised by xbox and raging online playing shooter games.

- Drugs leads to a large segment of population who are not doing their "fair share" like people like to blame the rich. Also stunts emotional growth
- Lack of housing creates a working poor. It is not how much money you make, it is when you bought your house
- Adding additional 3 plus million illegals who don't have a grade school education puts pressure on housing, traffic, resources and politicians who want to tax the producers to pay for that as well.

I can go on and I have and will in the future, but you know how I feel on this.

I just watched the Seattle clip ,,,,WHAT DO YOU NOTICE EVERY WERE ??? TRASH & WASTE,,,NOBODY WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT ,BUT THERE FORCE TO.The city FIRST needs to put BIG dumpster next to these spot and pick up there trash,instead of the police harassing these people ,,,THERE NEEDS TO BE TRASH POLICE ,AND MAKE THESE PEOPLE CLEAN UP THERE AREA ,give them $10 an hour,,,I DONT CARE WHAT YOUR OPINION ON THIS IS ,,,IF YOU WANT TO BE AN ADDICT ,MAKE A PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF NO WHERE ,Make it like 20 SQ miles call it D City and tell these people there FREEEE Drug at D City ,and there a bus leaving every 3 hours there,You watch how fast these people leave the City...This would be a Fenced in City and you can't leave inless you pass a drug test... PEOPLE NEED TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEM SELFS ,GYM NEED TO GIVE THES PEOPLE FREEEEE GYM MEMBERSHIPS SO THAY CAN CLEAN THEM SELFS UP,,,AND A SMALL LITTLE STORAGE UNIT TO KEEP THERE JUNK,PAYED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...

Originally Posted by dougr

Or just ship all the homeless and drug users to LA, quarantine the area, and make it a dead zone.

Kind of odd of life imitating art. Sounds like the rise of the zombie population....

You want to know what is equally great. BART forces overtime of civilian employees who are untrained to deal with drugged out people to go into the city after midnight to harrass/force the drugged out homeless in the train station walkway tunnels to move from side to side every few minutes. They then run a cleaner through the area. It is called the "Cleaning Initiative." When some employees complained that this was not right and in generally dangerous, they told them to call the police. Those who did not go along with it or complained too much were set up for disiplinary action and or fired. One the of the civilian supervisors even kind of bragged they were able to catch a number of employees who were not "up to standards" this way.

This is the problem...right here.

While not a typical Fox News fan myself...this is why we have the problems we do. No on can be offended anymore, not even criminals.

People have lost their freakin minds...not only regarding the outcome but this is what elected official are spending time and resources on vs dealing with the actual problems.

Go ahead and commit crimes...we don't want you to be worry about consequences, that would be inhumane.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san...nvolved-person

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH! All while the billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank.

Its funny the things the liberals rally against the most, are most prevalent in their districts. Income inequality can't get much larger than in SF.

Originally Posted by psudy

Its funny the things the liberals rally against the most, are most prevalent in their districts. Income inequality can't get much larger than in SF.

Just like when all the hollywood women love to project that white males in fly over country must be barbaric rapists, when it was them sleeping their way to the top with white males on the casting couch. Projection is their number 1 industry.

Originally Posted by Shawn

This is the problem...right here.

While not a typical Fox News fan myself...this is why we have the problems we do. No on can be offended anymore, not even criminals.

People have lost their freakin minds...not only regarding the outcome but this is what elected official are spending time and resources on vs dealing with the actual problems.

Go ahead and commit crimes...we don't want you to be worry about consequences, that would be inhumane.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san...nvolved-person

The greatest predictor of future behavior, is past behavior.....

The prop they passed that made everything from assault on police officers to some forms of rape legal state wide was the start of all this. The mindset was already there, now they have binding law to go with it. When you can not do anything about it, why try. Republicans are taking the let it burn down approach to the state now. It is past the tipping point.

So what would all of the right-wingers do about the issue? Lock up the homeless? And then you can cue the ole, "Why are they letting violent offenders out with lenient sentences?" Jails will be seriously overcrowded with imprisoning the homeless. So honestly, what do you do about the problem? No matter how you dumbasses try to spin it, it's not a left or right issue.

Perhaps an extension on the earlier posted video.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-r...aith-in-system

Making handouts dependent on performance would be a good place to start.

Originally Posted by wake77

So what would all of the right-wingers do about the issue? Lock up the homeless? And then you can cue the ole, "Why are they letting violent offenders out with lenient sentences?" Jails will be seriously overcrowded with imprisoning the homeless. So honestly, what do you do about the problem? No matter how you dumbasses try to spin it, it's not a left or right issue.

Well, we ALL feel better knowing we're dumbasses!! You're a miserable a$shole. I would hate to know you personally.

The problem areas have legislated their way into this mess, but I don't think they can legislate their way out of it. As wake so eloquently pointed out, arresting them all is not the answer. At least not yet.

Start cracking down on the drug dealers to start with. Bring back normal punishment for criminal activity, repeal prop 48.

Relocated their asses to Kansas for a few months so they can get clean and start thinking clearly. 3 types of homeless from is pretty accurate IMO, start evaluating and helping all 3.

Restore order: let police do their job, not be fired for defending themselves against assault. Beat the chit out of one or two violent homeless dudes in public every now and then. They'll get the message.

3T will be a drop in the bucket.

Hey FU! we aren't helping with your mess. Reap what you sow California!

Originally Posted by wake77

So what would all of the right-wingers do about the issue? Lock up the homeless? And then you can cue the ole, "Why are they letting violent offenders out with lenient sentences?" Jails will be seriously overcrowded with imprisoning the homeless. So honestly, what do you do about the problem? No matter how you dumbasses try to spin it, it's not a left or right issue.

We all know there is always a problem with drugs. We know there will be homelessness mostly caused by mental issues. Matter of fact many drug addicts are those are trying to self medicate the crazy away.

First thing is you never let society think it is an ok way to live. We all have the drunk uncle. We all know about that guy. He is out there, but it is about boundaries. The boundary is it is not acceptable. As soon as it is acceptable drunk uncles buddies from down at the bar are at the house. Now you have chaos. That is what is happening in the areas where they believe they are doing them a favor. We feel sorry for the mentally ill drug addicts and of course those yuppies who have the money and influence who want to be high in public. Now it is "acceptable". Now here comes the hard core professional addicts and drug pushers. They are out in daylight and they are dangerous because that is a kill or be killed world. Now they are out mixed with polite society. They are no longer living in the darkness but in the light. The wolfs will consume the sheep. Those liberals have been taught for so long that they are not allowed to fight that they are easy prey.

Like I said before. We like to think we are smarter now as a society. People could not be more wrong. Our society is falling flat on it's face when it comes to cause and effect.

Simple fix
Make all hard drugs FULL STRENGTH. 1 time use and DEAD DONE, By By. I say pull a giant wood chippier up to these encampments and throw everything inside in including the Roaches and have that feed into Giant mobile Crematorium, to burn up all the Disease and nastyness. Play Ice Creamtruck music to drown out the screams and yelling . After a few passes around the block the problem is solved. Beats throwing Millions down the drain ever year. San Jose spent $450 million a year on homeless this was a figure from 2006 I’m sure the number is WAY bigger now

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

We all know there is always a problem with drugs. We know there will be homelessness mostly caused by mental issues. Matter of fact many drug addicts are those are trying to self medicate the crazy away.

First thing is you never let society think it is an ok way to live. We all have the drunk uncle. We all know about that guy. He is out there, but it is about boundaries. The boundary is it is not acceptable. As soon as it is acceptable drunk uncles buddies from down at the bar are at the house. Now you have chaos. That is what is happening in the areas where they believe they are doing them a favor. We feel sorry for the mentally ill drug addicts and of course those yuppies who have the money and influence who want to be high in public. Now it is "acceptable". Now here comes the hard core professional addicts and drug pushers. They are out in daylight and they are dangerous because that is a kill or be killed world. Now they are out mixed with polite society. They are no longer living in the darkness but in the light. The wolfs will consume the sheep. Those liberals have been taught for so long that they are not allowed to fight that they are easy prey.

Like I said before. We like to think we are smarter now as a society. People could not be more wrong. Our society is falling flat on it's face when it comes to cause and effect.

What "society thinks this is an okay way to live"? What person in America grows up as a kid saying, "You know what, I want to be a homeless person"? Drugs are an effect, not a cause.

Originally Posted by denverd1

Well, we ALL feel better knowing we're dumbasses!! You're a miserable a$shole. I would hate to know you personally.

The problem areas have legislated their way into this mess, but I don't think they can legislate their way out of it. As wake so eloquently pointed out, arresting them all is not the answer. At least not yet.

Start cracking down on the drug dealers to start with. Bring back normal punishment for criminal activity, repeal prop 48.

Relocated their asses to Kansas for a few months so they can get clean and start thinking clearly. 3 types of homeless from is pretty accurate IMO, start evaluating and helping all 3.

Restore order: let police do their job, not be fired for defending themselves against assault. Beat the chit out of one or two violent homeless dudes in public every now and then. They'll get the message.

3T will be a drop in the bucket.

Hey pal, the feeling is mutual.

And I'm sure the residents of Kansas would love your solution. Why don't we put them in your community?

Ahhhh. Take a hiatus and Wake is still the same fly by poster he always is. Quick to condemn everyone else on the right offering solutions while he offers no insight , solutions or facts of his own. ........ the number 1 liberal mental disorder these days. Plenty of people wake up everyday and make a conscious choice to not work , not own or rent a home ,choose to be a junky, and choose not to be a productive member of society, you idiot. They’re the actual problem. These people are the reason those who actual deserve the help and resources when tragedy strikes can’t get it. California is the prime example of what a liberal society looks like making excuses for everyone instead of holding one’s self accountable . They design laws and pitch the view it’s an acceptable way of life .

Grant is on to something for sure. The easiest way to cut our homeless problem in had would be to just annex Cali , Oregon and Washington State from our society and let them suffer in their own experiments .

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Ahhhh. Take a hiatus and Wake is still the same fly by poster he always is. Quick to condemn everyone else on the right offering solutions while he offers no insight , solutions or facts of his own. ........ the number 1 liberal mental disorder these days. Plenty of people wake up everyday and make a conscious choice to not work , not own or rent a home ,choose to be a junky, and choose not to be a productive member of society, you idiot. They’re the actual problem. These people are the reason those who actual deserve the help and resources when tragedy strikes can’t get it. California is the prime example of what a liberal society looks like making excuses for everyone instead of holding one’s self accountable . They design laws and pitch the view it’s an acceptable way of life .

Grant is on to something for sure. The easiest way to cut our homeless problem in had would be to just annex Cali , Oregon and Washington State from our society and let them suffer in their own experiments .

You can actually tell a lot about Wakes angry lonely life by what he posts, how he says it & his repetitious reactions to what is said to him. His world view is bleak & myopic & if you disagree you're a moron or a jackass for refusing to kneel to his mouth of wisdom.

Bottom line with Homeless, you're only homeless because you want to be & refuse to obey by the drug & alcohol rules of programs & most decline their offer for mental health as well. I've been involved with the homeless for a while via charities & what I just stated is fact. Liberals can't stand facing that reality as it takes away another victim that needs saving by policies only liberals can offer. Liberalism is like the pharmacy industry, they need to keep making up problems that only they can save us from. If you're scared of what's true, vote blue.

Was discussing the other day what it takes to get "set up" with the tools to get a job and be productive for folks getting out of prison, but the same probably holds true for the homeless....

Let's say all of your worldly possessions are in a shopping cart down by the river. One morning you decide that being homeless isn't for you anymore and you want to get back into normal society. You are of course mentally ill, and probably have a drug habit of one kind or another too.

How, exactly, do you guys propose that a person with no money, mental health issues, and a drug problem, get back into being a productive member of society? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's really friggin hard too. Just getting a job... you need to have a phone and an address. You need access to a shower and transportation to and from your job. You need a safe place to sleep. With no job / no credit / no bank account, you are on the bottom and paying the most for any of this stuff. I'm guessing minimum, for someone who doesn't have a record, who isn't mentally ill, and who can pass a drug test, you need $2,500 to your name (or at least access to that much credit) in order to start a life (and that's probably to life somewhere that's pretty terrifying).

I'm not defending the culture or lifestyle of homelessness and I'd love to see these guys (it is overwhelmingly men) get their ish together and get back into society. But till there's a concerted effort to reintegrate them into society with the money to back it up (or go full Grant fourth Reich fantasy with the woodchipper), I'm not sure I see things changing.

Shawn Not sure where you live? But here in Ca, they have so many programs for people that want to become Normal citizens. Programs and facility’s that offer Food, Clothing, Showers, Beds, and even Apartments, Storage, Health Care, Drug programs, EVEN JOBs. And career training. These people that are on the streets that you see are simply roaches they do not want to participate in society and like roaches they choose to live in the cracks and feed off our waste

How, exactly, do you guys propose that a person with no money, mental health issues, and a drug problem, get back into being a productive member of society? "

Stop doing drugs.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Was discussing the other day what it takes to get "set up" with the tools to get a job and be productive for folks getting out of prison, but the same probably holds true for the homeless....

Let's say all of your worldly possessions are in a shopping cart down by the river. One morning you decide that being homeless isn't for you anymore and you want to get back into normal society. You are of course mentally ill, and probably have a drug habit of one kind or another too.

How, exactly, do you guys propose that a person with no money, mental health issues, and a drug problem, get back into being a productive member of society? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's really friggin hard too. Just getting a job... you need to have a phone and an address. You need access to a shower and transportation to and from your job. You need a safe place to sleep. With no job / no credit / no bank account, you are on the bottom and paying the most for any of this stuff. I'm guessing minimum, for someone who doesn't have a record, who isn't mentally ill, and who can pass a drug test, you need $2,500 to your name (or at least access to that much credit) in order to start a life (and that's probably to life somewhere that's pretty terrifying).

I'm not defending the culture or lifestyle of homelessness and I'd love to see these guys (it is overwhelmingly men) get their ish together and get back into society. But till there's a concerted effort to reintegrate them into society with the money to back it up (or go full Grant fourth Reich fantasy with the woodchipper), I'm not sure I see things changing.

You're operating under the assumption that they're on their own & it'd be impossible to scrounge for a job & pay rent. Obviously that's damn near impossible even for someone who's not homeless. The reality is & if you care to actually look into it, is there are so many programs & help that you have to want to be homeless. Some cities make it to easy like Freeatle. Why get off the junk? There's free showers, they provide free food, safe shoot up sites. I get the mentality that some just won't help themselves or take the help so the bleeding bless your liberal hearts find that that's a viable solution & makes us feel like we're doing something good for them. But the reality is creates more of it, makes it too easy & takes away any incentive to get off the streets.

If you've spent time with homeless, which I highly doubt you'd leave your well off white suburb to care, you wouldn't have such a myopic view that they're victims. The vast majority were young kids who loved the homeless life & it just spiraled & spiraled till there was no picking themselves back up. They're not victims. I feel bad for the elderly homeless but there is tons of free retirement / assisted living if you're destitute but you can't be a drunk & a druggie. You can't see things changing cause you refuse to look at the reality of the situation & did exactly what I say is the problem from lefties; perpetual victim hood.

I still to this day go & play chess with homeless people downtown. Lots of crazies, lots of junkies, some are clean & just prefer to be on the streets. I have met one who claims he was a psychologist & when his wife died in a car accident he just shut down & fell apart & lost any desire to climb back out.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

If you've spent time with homeless, which I highly doubt you'd leave your well off white suburb to care, you wouldn't have such a myopic view that they're victims. The vast majority were young kids who loved the homeless life & it just spiraled & spiraled till there was no picking themselves back up. They're not victims. I feel bad for the elderly homeless but there is tons of free retirement / assisted living if you're destitute but you can't be a drunk & a druggie. You can't see things changing cause you refuse to look at the reality of the situation & did exactly what I say is the problem from lefties; perpetual victim hood.

I'm not calling anyone victims. In fact I'm trying to be pretty neutral about it. It's like me saying hey, my lawn has weeds and they are really hard to get rid of, what do I do? I don't think that recognizing the weeds makes me a weed lover?

I get it you can complain about the homeless, but what's the actual answer to end / curtail / reduce homelessness? In the real world, what's going to end homelessness?

Jail them? All have rap sheets and go in and out anyhow, so that's not gonna work.

Institutionalize them? We got rid of funny farms in the 80s.

Teach them to not be homeless? You seem to think that's a waste of time (and I don't really disagree).

Buy them bus tickets to SF (don't laugh, there was a big scandal about that happening here a few years back)?

I'm asking for some no judgment brainstorming for solutions. What's the answer?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I'm not calling anyone victims. In fact I'm trying to be pretty neutral about it. It's like me saying hey, my lawn has weeds and they are really hard to get rid of, what do I do? I don't think that recognizing the weeds makes me a weed lover?

I get it you can complain about the homeless, but what's the actual answer to end / curtail / reduce homelessness? In the real world, what's going to end homelessness?

Jail them? All have rap sheets and go in and out anyhow, so that's not gonna work.

Institutionalize them? We got rid of funny farms in the 80s.

Teach them to not be homeless? You seem to think that's a waste of time (and I don't really disagree).

Buy them bus tickets to SF (don't laugh, there was a big scandal about that happening here a few years back)?

I'm asking for some no judgment brainstorming for solutions. What's the answer?

You answered it yourself; Nothing. There is nothing you can do for anyone who won't help themselves except perpetuate the problem by being too nice to cut them off at the knee. Life isn't fair, it's mean, it's cruel. It may make you feel better to think the way you are on the subject, but much better minds than all of ours have all come to the same conclusion: Nothing. That's why we are where we are. The reality & the real answer is cruel.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I'm not calling anyone victims. In fact I'm trying to be pretty neutral about it. It's like me saying hey, my lawn has weeds and they are really hard to get rid of, what do I do? I don't think that recognizing the weeds makes me a weed lover?

I get it you can complain about the homeless, but what's the actual answer to end / curtail / reduce homelessness? In the real world, what's going to end homelessness?

Jail them? All have rap sheets and go in and out anyhow, so that's not gonna work.

Institutionalize them? We got rid of funny farms in the 80s.

Teach them to not be homeless? You seem to think that's a waste of time (and I don't really disagree).

Buy them bus tickets to SF (don't laugh, there was a big scandal about that happening here a few years back)?

I'm asking for some no judgment brainstorming for solutions. What's the answer?

For crazy people: there is zero you can do about crazy outside of going full authoritarian.

For Drug Addicts: Well, society has to decide that drug addicts are not producing and you have to bring the full weight of the law on them. You almost have to go full authoritarian. You are not going to convince them that what they are doing is either bad or worth stop doing. Unfortunately in California, they pretty much vacated all laws that allow law enforcement to contact these people even in public. Society also has to understand that early drug use prior to you brain being developed will impact development. This will not work considering how many generational drug addicts there are.

Working poor: In california, they need to mandate enough housing to cover all the worker head count in the city that has a business permit plus some statistical amount of support jobs. It would be hard to a certain degree. How gets the business permits once you decide housing to job ratio is full. Right now cops and teachers can not afford to even live in the cities they work in (as well as the majority of the workforce). Also start taxing the crap out of people who own more than one or two houses. Make housing investment almost a non money maker.

How much Human Resources should we waste on Roaches?

As a person that frequents SF. When you see the SF police spending on the Majority of their time Managing roach ass people. If we could just get rid of the Roaches so much of the states resources would be free to take care of TAX PAYING citizens. YA know the people that put into the system.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

For crazy people: there is zero you can do about crazy outside of going full authoritarian.

For Drug Addicts: Well, society has to decide that drug addicts are not producing and you have to bring the full weight of the law on them. You almost have to go full authoritarian. You are not going to convince them that what they are doing is either bad or worth stop doing. Unfortunately in California, they pretty much vacated all laws that allow law enforcement to contact these people even in public. Society also has to understand that early drug use prior to you brain being developed will impact development. This will not work considering how many generational drug addicts there are.

Working poor: In california, they need to mandate enough housing to cover all the worker head count in the city that has a business permit plus some statistical amount of support jobs. It would be hard to a certain degree. How gets the business permits once you decide housing to job ratio is full. Right now cops and teachers can not afford to even live in the cities they work in (as well as the majority of the workforce). Also start taxing the crap out of people who own more than one or two houses. Make housing investment almost a non money maker.

good stuff Delta. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I've been hearing more and more about zoning being used as a tool to keep "undesirable" people out of a neighborhood (as in "ewww, poor people") but hadn't really thought of requiring a reverse zoning change to force communities to be more affordable. Mostly what that means is allowing for increased housing density (i.e. allowing developers to buy up single family homes to build high rises). That probably makes a lot of sense from a policy perspective, even though it would suck royally to be a neighbor who now has to live in the shadow of a giant apartment building.

Even with zero interest loans, the cost to build is so high investors would have a hard time pulling profit or even breakeven on something like that so you would still be using tax payer money to build these.

@delta - Let me present a different view. If I worked my ass off all my life to provide for my family, and also the 50 employees and their families that work for me, and I want to buy a second or fourth house, why would you tax the hell out of me? I pay my full share of taxes (in fact probably considerably higher then most) and for the 37 years I have been working. The houses are a tiny write of, but it is mostly real estate investments long term that will be handed to my kids and grand kids. Owning that second or third house, I am paying a mortgage plus interest which helps the banks and national economy. It uses utilities even if I am not in it, which helps those companies as well. Also there are small businesses that help with landscape, pool serveice, cleaners, and such, it helps all of those mom and pop companies just trying to make it. if I let friends or family stay there, that helps their well being and give them a cool vacation at a minimal cost to them. When someone stays in the home, they frequent local restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations and local shops, which is good or the local community. So why would I be taxed additionally if I worked hard, generated enough credit and cash to afford a second home?This country and the bulk of the really wealthy people came from real estate. If we tax the hell out of that, then they just won't buy the real estate and will invest welfare which will grab impact all of those local communities. Their may be more available and affordable housing, but most people with multiple homes are not getting them in areas where lower income people could afford anyways. Its not like people go into Tahoe and buy up (5) $2 million dollars houses. If you work in tahoe, generally you cant affoard to live there. Maybe its just California, but all the peel I know that have multiple houses have them in destination areas and not in cities.

Originally Posted by psudy

Even with zero interest loans, the cost to build is so high investors would have a hard time pulling profit or even breakeven on something like that so you would still be using tax payer money to build these.

They've experimented with multiple housing plans & buying old commercial properties for the homeless. They all failed miserably as the dwellers need constant supervision & they destroyed the places that were provided. A lot like section 8 neighborhoods

Oh I know. They are an maintenance nightmare that just keep eating tax dollars.

I just realized even through all the feel good talk from our lefty friends, they talk out their butts about what should be provided to the homeless but they STILL leave out any project, housing, complex would require compliance with drug & alcohol policies. Then what? They'll still choose to not comply. If only someone would try safe places for them to shoot up & shower

Originally Posted by buffalow

@delta - Let me present a different view. If I worked my ass off all my life to provide for my family, and also the 50 employees and their families that work for me, and I want to buy a second or fourth house, why would you tax the hell out of me? I pay my full share of taxes (in fact probably considerably higher then most) and for the 37 years I have been working. The houses are a tiny write of, but it is mostly real estate investments long term that will be handed to my kids and grand kids. Owning that second or third house, I am paying a mortgage plus interest which helps the banks and national economy. It uses utilities even if I am not in it, which helps those companies as well. Also there are small businesses that help with landscape, pool serveice, cleaners, and such, it helps all of those mom and pop companies just trying to make it. if I let friends or family stay there, that helps their well being and give them a cool vacation at a minimal cost to them. When someone stays in the home, they frequent local restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations and local shops, which is good or the local community. So why would I be taxed additionally if I worked hard, generated enough credit and cash to afford a second home?This country and the bulk of the really wealthy people came from real estate. If we tax the hell out of that, then they just won't buy the real estate and will invest welfare which will grab impact all of those local communities. Their may be more available and affordable housing, but most people with multiple homes are not getting them in areas where lower income people could afford anyways. Its not like people go into Tahoe and buy up (5) $2 million dollars houses. If you work in tahoe, generally you cant affoard to live there. Maybe its just California, but all the peel I know that have multiple houses have them in destination areas and not in cities.

I get what you are saying, however most regular people can not compete with the deep pockets that buy all those extra houses. I am not saying it is the absolute package and I am glad it is stirring up a discussion because I don't know if it is the absolute answer.

All I know I have a pretty darn good job. Not going to be rich. Just doing my part, but when I was looking to get into a house that was affordable, I literally had a realtor driving around an investor who was visiting the exact same houses I was looking at. Basically the houses I was looking at was bought up right behind me for cash. I eventually had to struggle and find a house that was 50k more that got it above the rental market recoup cost. While I am please with my house and neighborhood and feel blessed that I got in because if I would have waited even 6 months I would not have been able to buy. With that said, It has now killed my disposable income.

While investors do buy the houses and all the things you say are true for you and possibly other investors, the power of owning a house is the fact a buyer has stabilized their outgoing and after a decade or so their pay should go up, outgoing for housing is stabilized and now they have more money to spend on other parts of the economy. While investors buying up the houses sounds good up front, they typically continue to raise their rent to capture the current market. That is usually a rate that makes a renter stay in a rental vs buying. Renters never get ahead. They never get to have the ability to stabilze their housing outgoing for the next couple decades and into retirement. Also, you get rid of investors and the competition goes down. Competition goes down, prices stay flatter and now housing is not such a high portion of peoples income.

That is the perspective I am thinking about it from. Could be wrong. Just my observation of someone who does not seem to be over that wave.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

I just realized even through all the feel good talk from our lefty friends, they talk out their butts about what should be provided to the homeless but they STILL leave out any project, housing, complex would require compliance with drug & alcohol policies. Then what? They'll still choose to not comply. If only someone would try safe places for them to shoot up & shower

Just look at the "Projects" in all these big cities. That is already the public housing dream of the left and we all know those have fallen flat on their face.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

good stuff Delta. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I've been hearing more and more about zoning being used as a tool to keep "undesirable" people out of a neighborhood (as in "ewww, poor people") but hadn't really thought of requiring a reverse zoning change to force communities to be more affordable. Mostly what that means is allowing for increased housing density (i.e. allowing developers to buy up single family homes to build high rises). That probably makes a lot of sense from a policy perspective, even though it would suck royally to be a neighbor who now has to live in the shadow of a giant apartment building.

While I agree about the "ewww poor people", however they are correct. "Those" poor people are the undesirable. I would not want them either. I think what may be the ships passing in the night is those poor people want to live the way they do. Maybe as a secondary effect of life style choices, but they want to be there. Let them be there, but it is their decision making that will kill any neighborhood and community. That is not the standard we want or should accept.

The way I see it on the high density housing. If Mountain View, California wants all those high tech companies, then they should provide a space for their workers. What they want is the tax benefits of those workers, then ship their a$$es off an 1 or 2 away while they have their nice little community to themselves. Nice and quiet like with good weather. They want their cake and eat it too. I say heck no. You want a hundred thousand workers, then you need to have 50,000 to 100,000 housing units for them. If you don't have the land mass, then you need to go up. That should not be the central valleys problem.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

While I agree about the "ewww poor people", however they are correct. "Those" poor people are the undesirable. I would not want them either. I think what may be the ships passing in the night is those poor people want to live the way they do. Maybe as a secondary effect of life style choices, but they want to be there. Let them be there, but it is their decision making that will kill any neighborhood and community. That is not the standard we want or should accept.

The way I see it on the high density housing. If Mountain View, California wants all those high tech companies, then they should provide a space for their workers. What they want is the tax benefits of those workers, then ship their a$$es off an 1 or 2 away while they have their nice little community to themselves. Nice and quiet like with good weather. They want their cake and eat it too. I say heck no. You want a hundred thousand workers, then you need to have 50,000 to 100,000 housing units for them. If you don't have the land mass, then you need to go up. That should not be the central valleys problem.

no exactly. By "eww poor people," I mean that's what the single family homeowners say about apartment dwellers in affordable homes, not the homeless. Original zoning regs were frequently disguised racial segregation. No doubt in some older bay area neighborhoods you'll find (now unenforceable) racially restrictive CC&Rs too.

Though with density the homeless do somehow seem to follow. How often do you see a homeless camp out in the middle of nowhere?

Your ideas are surprisingly progressive, Delta. I didn't expect you to propose new taxes on the rich or being an advocate for regulating the "free" market. (in quotes because as you obviously know the "free" market ain't free and relies heavily on gov't choices to operate -- like how and where affordable housing can/should/must be built).

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

no exactly. By "eww poor people," I mean that's what the single family homeowners say about apartment dwellers in affordable homes, not the homeless. Original zoning regs were frequently disguised racial segregation. No doubt in some older bay area neighborhoods you'll find (now unenforceable) racially restrictive CC&Rs too.

Though with density the homeless do somehow seem to follow. How often do you see a homeless camp out in the middle of nowhere?

Your ideas are surprisingly progressive, Delta. I didn't expect you to propose new taxes on the rich or being an advocate for regulating the "free" market. (in quotes because as you obviously know the "free" market ain't free and relies heavily on gov't choices to operate -- like how and where affordable housing can/should/must be built).

You should shower, I can smell your white guilt all the way over here. What do you personally do for the homeless beside discuss what should be done, by others?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

no exactly. By "eww poor people," I mean that's what the single family homeowners say about apartment dwellers in affordable homes, not the homeless. Original zoning regs were frequently disguised racial segregation. No doubt in some older bay area neighborhoods you'll find (now unenforceable) racially restrictive CC&Rs too.

Though with density the homeless do somehow seem to follow. How often do you see a homeless camp out in the middle of nowhere?

Your ideas are surprisingly progressive, Delta. I didn't expect you to propose new taxes on the rich or being an advocate for regulating the "free" market. (in quotes because as you obviously know the "free" market ain't free and relies heavily on gov't choices to operate -- like how and where affordable housing can/should/must be built).

I have always said it takes 2 wings to fly, however I absolutely am not into handouts and doing our best to have some sort of personal responsibllity. I am not saying I am against rich people but all the jobs are in the high democrat areas and they talk out of both sides of their mouths. They want the other areas to house their workers while they have nice quiet towns on the weekend. They want the regular peoples family to be destroyed while they can not work anywhere near their children. They want the state to raise their children. Just part of their plan. Works great on the black community. Pass laws that destroy the family and now they in mass are wards of the state.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

You should shower, I can smell your white guilt all the way over here. What do you personally do for the homeless beside discuss what should be done, by others?

Well I do keep a few “bum bags” in my truck that I will give to panhandlers. They have water, deodorant, disposable razor, toof brush and a granola bar inside.

I am not sure Its my personal responsibility to end systemic homelessness. Do you have some suggestions / what do you do?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Well I do keep a few “bum bags” in my truck that I will give to panhandlers. They have water, deodorant, disposable razor, toof brush and a granola bar inside.

I am not sure Its my personal responsibility to end systemic homelessness. Do you have some suggestions / what do you do?

Don't lie. You are just passing along your fathers day gifts.......

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Well I do keep a few “bum bags” in my truck that I will give to panhandlers. They have water, deodorant, disposable razor, toof brush and a granola bar inside.

I am not sure Its my personal responsibility to end systemic homelessness. Do you have some suggestions / what do you do?

DOn't they get pissed when the open them and there is no liquor in it? I bought a bum a sandwich in Chicago a while back. He yelled at me for it(while eating it of course).

Ha! No. My wife works with the mentally ill (many of whom are homeless too) in a professional capacity. Bum bags were her idea because she feels bad for them but also knows that these guys are almost 100% likely to have a substance issue so doesn’t want to give money. We got a bunch of tiny waters / toof brushes (the crappy kind that cheap dentists give) / bulk travel size deodorants / Costco box of granola bars.

Originally Posted by psudy

DOn't they get pissed when the open them and there is no liquor in it? I bought a bum a sandwich in Chicago a while back. He yelled at me for it(while eating it of course).

I don’t stick around. Usually this is a “drive thru” type transaction. LOL yeah prolly not happy tho.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Well I do keep a few “bum bags” in my truck that I will give to panhandlers. They have water, deodorant, disposable razor, toof brush and a granola bar inside.

I am not sure Its my personal responsibility to end systemic homelessness. Do you have some suggestions / what do you do?

I work with charities & my company donates large amounts to the rescue mission. I play in a lot of golf tournaments for the rescue mission as well & I've worked the soup lines. I also have spent my personal times hanging out downtown just playing chess & getting to know some of them.

My point is there is no solution & the Government has tried multiple solutions & all of them fail. Your argument is wanting something done because you don't care enough to do it yourself or donate your time. Hence, you want daddy Government to fix it & arguing in favor of it just makes you feel good. In the intermin, if you care as much as you want to sound like you, then go do something on your own instead.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Ha! No. My wife works with the mentally ill (many of whom are homeless too) in a professional capacity. Bum bags were her idea because she feels bad for them but also knows that these guys are almost 100% likely to have a substance issue so doesn’t want to give money. We got a bunch of tiny waters / toof brushes (the crappy kind that cheap dentists give) / bulk travel size deodorants / Costco box of granola bars.

You know liberalism is a mental disorder

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Ha! No. My wife works with the mentally ill (many of whom are homeless too) in a professional capacity. Bum bags were her idea because she feels bad for them but also knows that these guys are almost 100% likely to have a substance issue so doesn’t want to give money. We got a bunch of tiny waters / toof brushes (the crappy kind that cheap dentists give) / bulk travel size deodorants / Costco box of granola bars.

Also, forgive me for bringing your family into this, however I feel it is a object lesson of the point you inadvertently just made. Your wife pretty much admitted that giving the homeless more than just a very basic need is not worthwhile because anything they can use to get housing and so on will just go to alcohol (and drugs). That is he point, taking from the doers to give to the non doers is a policy of disaster. When government makes the law, it can not be parced. It is just that way for everyone thus a drain.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, forgive me for bringing your family into this, however I feel it is a object lesson of the point you inadvertently just made. Your wife pretty much admitted that giving the homeless more than just a very basic need is not worthwhile because anything they can use to get housing and so on will just go to alcohol (and drugs). That is he point, taking from the doers to give to the non doers is a policy of disaster. When government makes the law, it can not be parced. It is just that way for everyone thus a drain.

I think if you read what I've been writing here you'd see that I'm by no means suggesting that we give anyone any money. I think your post is actually a pretty good "object lesson" of you trying to fit what people do into a political paradigm. For the most part I agree with you that those who don't want to be helped won't be helped.

LOL I didn't know till today that the proper way to help end homelessness (something I'm apparently charged with) was charity golf tournaments and chess with the homeless but I'll look into that. So I have learned something.

This is easily fixed, move them to the wealthiest areas, put up tents, and let them live in front of the people who make the laws, dem or rep! Let them **** on their porches, doors, streets, parks etc etc

Problem solved, laws will change.

Or, leave it, move more to that area, and quarantine the zone. Sad, but the people who live there need to change their vote!

Just watched a documentary called The Pursuit by Arthur C, Brooks, and he has gone to India to show how the people there have lifted themselves out of poverty. He also stopped in at Denmark to show what they were doing right, and finally showed a very good program that works in NYC, called the Doe Fund, their motto is work, works.
Anyway, You cannot help anyone who does not want to be helped and it's even tougher to help the mentally ill, but our poverty rate in the United States should be going down, not up!

San Clemente clears homeless camp site and requires proof of ties to the city for reentry https://www.ocregister.com/2019/08/3...4LWnuMwXMG88HQ

I once drove though New Mexico,There was NOTHING for hours,Nothing ,Drop off some Military Mess tents & showers and bathrooms To N.M.,,,Bus these people out there ,and if thay don't want to go arrest them ,and then a judge will make them go live there ,,,they can build up a living area or be bums ,,,the trash is building up and thats not good for anyone around it ,,,This can be done in a mater of Days like a war,,,We're going to fight homelessness and clean up the streets,,,ITS SICK OUT THERE ,,,LOT OF HOMELESSNESS IN ALL OF SAN DIEGO,SEE IT EVERY DAY AROUND MY SHOP...IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE ,ANYONE COULD TAKE 3 SECS AND YOUR LIVE COULD CHANGE FOR EVER ,,,IT HAPPENED TO ME 2 INSANE CAR ACCIDENTS,,,WELL IM BACK AND EVEN PADDLE OUT TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE JUNIOR ALMOST KILLED ME...

Opinion: Gavin Newsom tells Southern California NIMBYs to expect new housing in their backyards,,,,SAME IDEA BUT IN N.M. WHERE THE LAND IS CHEEP

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...KH454duhJkLHXw

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Ahhhh. Take a hiatus and Wake is still the same fly by poster he always is. Quick to condemn everyone else on the right offering solutions while he offers no insight , solutions or facts of his own. ........ the number 1 liberal mental disorder these days. Plenty of people wake up everyday and make a conscious choice to not work , not own or rent a home ,choose to be a junky, and choose not to be a productive member of society, you idiot. They’re the actual problem. These people are the reason those who actual deserve the help and resources when tragedy strikes can’t get it. California is the prime example of what a liberal society looks like making excuses for everyone instead of holding one’s self accountable . They design laws and pitch the view it’s an acceptable way of life .

Grant is on to something for sure. The easiest way to cut our homeless problem in had would be to just annex Cali , Oregon and Washington State from our society and let them suffer in their own experiments .

Dude, your solution is to (de)annex California, Oregon, and Washington from our society and you bash me for not offering solutions? CA has like the fourth largest GDP in the entire world. You're a joke.

Originally Posted by wake77

Dude, your solution is to (de)annex California, Oregon, and Washington from our society and you bash me for not offering solutions? CA has like the fourth largest GDP in the entire world. You're a joke.

You are correct, however once they have to field a standing army and they annex Mexico like the California governors have said, more than once in public speaking, they would no longer be that large of an economy.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You are correct, however once they have to field a standing army and they annex Mexico like the California governors have said, more than once in public speaking, they would no longer be that large of an economy.

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

How dare you bring facts into an argument? We'll just replace CA with Greenland. I think they'll sell it for a gajillion dollars.

it's getting bad in Cali...

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

maybe it'd work out if WA and OR are included too.



https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

Plus, defense spending is 2.3% of US economy but only 2.1% of California's, even though California has the second highest total spend (behind Virginia, where military spending accounts for 12% of GDP).

http://www.ncsl.org/research/militar...economies.aspx

How is it that California is spending on military?

You do realize those "facts" you appear to be crowing is the defense spending that accounts for the GDP of a state. Not what the state is paying to provide a military.

My comment stands. Let the pacific coast have to form a standing army. Granted, the federal money from taxes would have to stay in state, but they would lose the federal reserve, all federal spending in the state. They do have the ports, but much of that product is meant to be a pass through to the rest of the country as well. It would not be all nice and tight for the west coast if they were not part of the US like they would like to think.

Originally Posted by MooSeMan

it's getting bad in Cali...

That is not even the half of it....

Originally Posted by wake77

How dare you bring facts into an argument? We'll just replace CA with Greenland. I think they'll sell it for a gajillion dollars.

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

How is it that California is spending on military?

You do realize those "facts" you appear to be crowing is the defense spending that accounts for the GDP of a state. Not what the state is paying to provide a military.

My comment stands. Let the pacific coast have to form a standing army. Granted, the federal money from taxes would have to stay in state, but they would lose the federal reserve, all federal spending in the state. They do have the ports, but much of that product is meant to be a pass through to the rest of the country as well. It would not be all nice and tight for the west coast if they were not part of the US like they would like to think.

On avg across all states, we spend 2.3% of GDP on the military.

In California, the state with the second biggest military spend, that spend represents only 2.1% of California's GDP. So California is net loser by 0.2% if just looking at the averages. And again, has the second highest spend. But that's not the whole story either because it doesn't account for the disproportionate percentage of the federal budget which is borne by California's taxes.

By all measures, California pays more federal tax than it receives in federal spending (including the military spending).

It's definitely an interesting question of who would suffer more as a result of a Cal-exit, California or the rest of the country. But there's certainly no clear conclusion that can be drawn one way or another. You seem to suggest that California might be "weak" as a result of failure to field a standing army. Is that in relation to its physical neighbors, or to the rest of the world? I mean with respect to its neighbors, it would sure seem like Mexico would be easier to invade and hold than CA. As to the world, the remaining USA and CA are probably both weaker and China is likely the big winner (thinking of projection of naval power in the pacific)? Dunno.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Isn't it supposed to be a giveaway to international mineral extraction companies under the guise of national security?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Isn't it supposed to be a giveaway to international mineral extraction companies under the guise of national security?

Why is everything a give away to you democrats when it comes to business and security?

Right now we have to go to china for all these rare earth minerals. We through our environazi regulations can not mine for new materials here. So, how do we get out from under a communist country holding our ability to make car batteries and electronics?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Why is everything a give away to you democrats when it comes to business and security?



Right now we have to go to china for all these rare earth minerals. We through our environazi regulations can not mine for new materials here. So, how do we get out from under a communist country holding our ability to make car batteries and electronics?

If mined “here” (US territories and for sake of argument let’s include Greenland) is there a requirement that the extracted minerals stay here?

If not then all you are doing is using my tax dollars to prop up someone else’s industry.

Also why wouldn’t US environmental laws apply if Greenland were made a territory? I hadn’t heard that argument but can’t see why it would be true.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

If mined “here” (US territories and for sake of argument let’s include Greenland) is there a requirement that the extracted minerals stay here?

If not then all you are doing is using my tax dollars to prop up someone else’s industry.

Also why wouldn’t US environmental laws apply if Greenland were made a territory? I hadn’t heard that argument but can’t see why it would be true.

By allowing China to be the sole producer you are propping them, doing more damage to the environment, climate change, enslave their own people & your tax dollars still get spent on all those minerals as an import item in lieu of your tax dollars propping up an American owned company.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

By allowing China to be the sole producer you are propping them, doing more damage to the environment, climate change, enslave their own people & your tax dollars still get spent on all those minerals as an import item in lieu of your tax dollars propping up an American owned company.

Why can't we just buy the minerals from our ally, Denmark?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You probably don't even know why were are interested in Greenland do you?

Does it even matter? What if another country proposed to Trump, "We want to buy Alaska or Hawaii"? Damn dude, has it ever occurred to you to look at things objectively?

Originally Posted by wake77

Does it even matter? What if another country proposed to Trump, "We want to buy Alaska or Hawaii"? Damn dude, has it ever occurred to you to look at things objectively?

I am pretty sure I am in the objective camp. You guys saw that Trump asked about it and he is automatically a baffoon. I on the other had wanted to find out why it was even a topic.

Of the two positions, it is pretty clear that mine is the objective position.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Why can't we just buy the minerals from our ally, Denmark?

Good question. Why go to a third party if you can control it your self? Businesses by up smaller companies all the time so they can have control of parts deliveries and technology that they need for their product. Trump being a businessman, I would consider this a natural extension/ question to be asked. We are trying to make a battery powered US, so it makes sense to own the resources to do so. You at least have to ask the question.