I'm frustrated. I don't even know where to start. I think Washington hates change. it seems like they're doing everything possible to preserve the current systems that have destroyed the country. Life changes, circumstances change, and you have to adjust, or else you're screwed. I think we're getting closer and closer to "screwed".
So much of our way of life is unsustainable, but it seems like our politicians are trying to preserve all of it. As if they think a lifestyle based on importing chinese crap, exporting weapons, moving our manufacturing to Mexico, building McMansions on farmland, running our lives on credit, saving zero dollars as a nation, shrinking the middle class, letting our cities rot, and leaving our healthcare up to insurance companies instead of doctors, is something we should be fighting
for.
I thought we had finally hit bottom, but now I'm not so sure. Corruption runs deep. There are a lot of people making money off of our misery. I was hopeful that we'd finally see some progress now that the people on top are hurting too, because of the Stock Market. But these bailout proposals look like free cash for Wall Street.
And why the hell does big business think they're entitled to free cash and aid from the government without penalty? Oh, right, cause there's no such thing as a free market, we always bail out the fat cats, that's the way it's always been.
two big issues are bugging the shit out of me. Healthcare and the Economy. I've decided to start with the Economy.
2 Opinions about the economic problem
There seems to be two general opinions on what the problem is in the Stock Market.
1) the first opinion is the Tim Geitner, Paulson, Wall Street perspective
2) the second opinion is the Krugman, Stiglitz, Robert Shapiro, Richard Freeman, and dcoffee perspective. Along with all the others who support wasting as little money as possible, protecting the public, and letting the lying gamblers on Wall Street who got us into this mess go broke.
1) the first opinion;
The main problem is that investors are scared. There is too much instability in the market, and nobody has confidence that they can make money. But things are fundamentally sound, the assets and most of the companies are OK, they're just undervalued because nobody is buying right now. But eventually things will go back to normal.
2) the second opinion;
Some of the money that people had on paper never existed, or it was grossly inflated because of the crazy housing bubble and other bundled debt that was sold. So actually there are 2-3 trillion dollars missing from the stock market, and it's not coming back.
these two ideas are not really compatible. Sure there is a crisis of confidence, that is obvious, but the money either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't exist, we'll have to find out what's worthless sooner or later. Or we can let the government buy the trash and save Wall Street's ass.
1) the first opinion supports the idea of giving 'aid' and 'relief' to financial institutions to help them get through this troubled period. Everything will go back to normal eventually, but right now the usual investors are just acting irrational. Maybe the government could buy the worst assets that nobody really understands, and nobody wants. Then it's our problem, instead of Wall Street's, and wall street can at least go back to normal.
2) the second opinion says that, there was a lot of gambling going on in the market, there was a lot of deception, and everybody lost money in the end. Now the public as a whole is in danger because our money was in that corrupt system. The government is the only one who can stabilize the market for the sake of protecting us all. This involves firing the people who got us into this mess, taking control of all the assets from that institution, not just the 'toxic assets'. The government reestablishes confidence by figuring out what all that stuff is really worth, and sells it back once we've made sense of it. We've done this in the past, in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis, maybe you forgot about that crisis, cause the nationalization plan worked damn well.
1) you might call the first option, cash for trash. Or a Bailout.
2) you might call the second option, detox. Or Nationalization.
The fundamental disagreement is weather the money exists or not. Call me crazy, but I don't think people on Wall Street can't accept that the money is gone. If you're on Wall Street you cannot be objective, because you want that money, you expected it, and the fact that it's gone is just impossible, no matter how much research you see to the contrary.
What happened to the money? A lot of it was based on mortgages and other debt. Everyone assumed that housing prices could only go up. So you got a big mortgage, and bought an amazing house. Your house was like a huge credit card that not only had a big credit limit, but its value went up, and eventually you could sell it and make a profit, or at least pay off a chunk out of the debt you owed on it. You wanted an expensive house, so even lame houses became expensive, and you didn't care, cause the value could only go up. At least, that's what everyone said.
The money was based on all of our debt, and we had a shitload, we still do. But we're not so sure we can pay it back, and neither are the banks, cause unemployment is rising. When you take out a 20-30 year mortgage at 4% - 5% you end up paying double, that's right, double, go ahead do the math. So that means the banks, as soon as they gave you that mortgage, they acted like they had cash in their hand. They figured about a quarter of the overall money they were owed wouldn't be paid back. So you get a $200,000 loan, they double it to $400,000, and subtract a quarter, and they guess they're going to make $100,000 from the interest over time. so they took that money, and used it on the stock market.
Add our consumer debt to that pile. And you realize this money is not coming back.
There's a hole in the market, that money is gone. The part that bugs me is that this problem was created on Wall Street, and they expect the taxpayer to bail them out. We should bail ourselves out, and put the greedy crooks who crashed the system in jail.
Well I'm kinda mixed on this issue my self.
-I live in the city If I wanted to live near a farm I would live in the country
-The people who wanted to do this should have looked into it before they bought the house instead of the other way around
-I do like the idea of having an urban farm and it is a good idea to use the area, but if you all ready have a plan with Habitat you can't really go back on that (plus that sends the message that agreements made mean nothing if you change things when some else comes along).
-Yes that part of town is kinda rough. There is this Idea that the reason houses get run down is because the people who own them don't live there, and that is true sometimes.
-People assume that poor people destroy places and sometimes that is true. But often what happens is that renters don't feel like it is their neighboorhood. So when they see bad shit go down they don't say anything. But when these people own a house it causes them to care about the area and what they own. I do agree with that.
---- Here is what should Happen. The people should be allowed to buy all the land. However there should be a set of time maybe 5-7 years that they must run a farm there. If it fails or they stop or they decide to open some thing else up or move or something along those lines they are held to strict stipulated penalties of some kind. What if they start this farm have it for 2 years and go broke and then move during the night and leave the house behind and now you have to start the plan all over. In terms of building new homes. I'm sure there is some place else in that area where the city can use federal money to knock them down and build new ones. On a side note I think Jannelle makes a lot of good points that there needs to be an entire system used for urban farms. Will this farm have animals and food will be grown or is is just like a huge Garden. What happens if someone from the hood goes into it at night and plants pot who makes sure that doesn't happen? Also what about zoning? What is allowed? -----
Hmm, from what I've read so far I think Habitat is flexible, they realize there is a lot of open space and are willing to look elsewhere. I also heard Habitat was surprised that the mayor even knew about their Wilson st. idea and didn't like his using it as an excuse to deny the farm permit.
Personally I'm not so keen on livestock, chickens, pigs whatever, cause you'll have to build shelters and deal with their waste. but I think farming plants is quite positive.
and as paul said, "we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments."
there are community gardens all over the city in empty lots, and they're always regarded as positive things, politicians go and make speeches in them for photo ops. They're more popular now, and some of them have veggies too.
As for the masterplan excuse, there is a plan from about 4 years ago, building on the Queen City Hub plan, it was created by 'East Side Good Neighbors Planning Alliance' each neighborhood had a 'GNPA' it's community folks, they create the plan for their own neighborhood. the Wilson St. lots were down for parkland/greenspace. So housing might actually go against that. :::link:::
I think beautifying the open spaces will lead directly to a more desirable neighborhood, and better home values. I think it would actually help more than new-build homes. The East side will attract bargain shoppers, do it yourself people, who'd buy a house cheap and put some sweat into it. Maybe a house with an empty lot next door they could farm. Realy, who wants to buy a house there, thrifty self sufficient people.
Also, there really is a farm East of Main near Utica, and it's 3 acres, bigger than this one.
And PS. zobar, I'm totally changing my user sound to the Talking Heads.
Ya, the lease offered had a clause where they would have to be off the premises in 30 days. No Farmer in their right mind would take that.
I think that Habitat for Humanity offered to allow them to use the land temporarily but they declined. It's probably not worth their efforts.
That's why I say the individuals should have done a little more planning ahead of time.
I say why not let them build a farm with a short term permit - say 5 years - and see how it goes. There is definately not an urgent need for housing on the eastside or anywhere in Buffalo. I mean so many of the houses are completely destroyed - which means no one wanted them.
If it doesn't work - we all know how easy it is to make farmland into subdevelopments. However, if they build one of those newstyle plastic sided subdivisions, it is a little more difficult to turn it back into farmland and required demolition, etc - although I am sure the eastide would be capable of that oer ten years.
I agree to an extent Janelle. However, I do not think there is any long-term vision for this particular neighborhood. The mayor's plan for new housing is a great way to build some new homes that devalue to nothing over the course of ten years. You cannot simply install a sustainable neighborhood. Having Habitat for Humanity build low-cost homes is fine, but this particular neighborhood is in the middle of no where. There is a two acre lot because the homes rotted into the ground.
The farm is a great way to incrementally stabilize the neighborhood. First, it puts the land back on the city's bankroll. Ka-Ching! It puts a business in there that is not necessarily dependent on local consumption. Ka-Ching! It ties in to other local businesses like the Broadway Market. Ka-Ching. If it does take off and stabilize neighborhood housing prices, it would become feasible to rehab or construct new housing, eventually making the farm's land value to great they would be fools not to sell it and homestead some other rotten part of the city. At worst, the farm doesn't make it but the city collects tax on that land for a few years. At least there wont be any new construction on that land to demolish.
While I think urban farming is an interesting idea, the city has a responsibility to consider how the idea fits into a broader plan of development. They shouldn't hand over land to every person who comes by with an idea and it would be irresponsible city planning to do so.
Obviously the city isn't entirely opposed to urban farming because of the farm on the west side. And David Rivera's office is diligently working on the backyard poultry issue.
I wonder if these people did any research on the issue when they moved here. If they wanted to do urban farming, it might have been more beneficial for them to spend some time checking out different neighborhoods, seeing where it might be viable, and having discussions with the local councilperson to garner support for the idea.
I would like the city to explore urban farming because it would be an interesting way to use vacant land. But there needs to be a system in place to consider where the farm will go and the impact on the area. Farms seem so nice and idyllic but the byproducts of farming could further add to the pollution in the area. So I rather not have people just putting up farms wherever they can claim a piece of vacant land without any thought or oversight.
If the neighbors are down [if there are any neighbors] and they can get the money, I don't see why it's any of the mayor's business what they do. The upside of the whole thing is that if the city turns down enough money for enough projects they don't like, it's going to put more pressure on the city to articulate and follow through on this master plan of theirs.
- Z
ARGH! I have lazarus installed on the other ocmputer! I had a beautiful long comment and now it's gone! :-(
(e:dcoffee), thank you so much for posting this!! I definitely agree with you about the potential of urban farming as a path for reclaimation and encouragement of community & economic development.