jenks - 04/30/09 09:12
ooh, lib that's a ride i've been wanting to make for a while, but the time I tried I got totally lost down behind the buffalo news... can you tell me (exactly) how you got there from downtown? that would be awesome.

libertad - 04/29/09 14:02
I rode my bike to the botanical gardens on Monday and rode through Cazenovia park. When I get a chance I want to make a post of my trip because it was so much fun and I saw so much stuff I had never seen before. I didn't even know the park existed prior to monday.

lauren - 04/29/09 10:12
Sounds like an awesome way to start out the summer! I took one of "my" kids who lives in Lackawanna for a walk around the Botanical Gardens Park (South Park?) on Monday and it was soooo nice. My dog enjoyed it too :)

hodown - 04/28/09 21:49
That makes me miss Buffalo :(

jenks - 03/30/09 22:07
i'm totally with you here. I mean yes, the drug companies are businesses and need to earn money. But I think the 'direct to patient' advertising is absolutely wrong.
I mean i'm not against making people aware of new meds.
but that line 'ask your doctor is x pill is right for you" just absolutely rubs me the wrong way.
How about you trust your doctor to know which meds are right??
If anything the drug companies should spend more of their energies educating the doctors who will prescribe the drugs, not the patients. There are a lot of great new drugs out there. But so many docs are set in their ways and scared to try something new- usually b/c they don't know about it. Once in a while I will see someone learn about some new product, and then try it out to see if it lives up to the hype. I think that's how it should go.
I mean the patients need to know- but I think they should hear it from their doc, not from someone with a background in advertising.

While they're at it... the drug companies can stop buying me lunch and giving me free pens. If they do that, maybe they can drop their prices .0000001% or something.

libertad - 03/30/09 20:43
That is interesting data. I'm surprised how much more they spend on advertising than on research. They have banned cigarette advertising so clearly they can ban any kind of advertising they want. I don't see why it is in the public interest this type of advertising.

dcoffee - 03/30/09 20:01
I just don't feel like the Drug Companies should play the role of the 'slick salesmen'. We'd all be better off if the could spend money creating new cures, instead of spending twice as much on marketing. If this drug really is as amazing as they say, wouldn't my doctor know about it? if it could help me personally wouldn't they mention it?

We have the FDA to approve new drugs right? Don't they notify people when something new comes out? There must be a comprehensive list of osteoporosis drugs somewhere, the doctor should be able to look at the list, think about the side-effects and other factors in relation to my body, and pick one. Why should I think the TV commercial knows more than my doctor? If that's the case than my doctor sucks.

Don't get me wrong, I can take care of a lot of things myself (I have to) I don't think you should be helpless without your doctor. But really, that's their job, and they went through over a decade of Med school to get there.

metalpeter - 03/30/09 19:44
The part that is weird about some of ok a lot of the ads is that they Tell you the drug name but don't really say what it is for. Or now the new wave of them is people talking and then they list the side effects in the conversation (legaly they have to list them). I do get why they do the Ads if you are trying to sell a Hard on pill and no one knows about more choices then Viagara you won't get any sales. There is one that I find really strange it is a drug for people who have depression and are taking meds but it doesn't cure everything so this pill is supposed to take care of things in addition to the meds you are allready taking.

joshua - 03/30/09 15:52
Yeah, the ads have always been shady. Then again, if you spend $800M-$1B developing a drug, I have no idea how you recuperate that much money without actually advertising for it. The advertising itself never really has bothered me, but the scale of it has definity been a stone in my shoe for a long time.

metalpeter - 03/25/09 18:19
First of all thanks. Second of all you are right to thank (e:Paul) for the site. I'm often not very social of a person. One of the things that I like about (e:strip) is that yes it is a social networking site, but it is also set up to be a community site. I don't mean an internet community that is something different. It is a way to also have a community off of the internet. Thirdly again maybe it is part of the keeping to myself but I don't know any of my neighbors. Yes I come home and some times there are lots of Asians playing ball out side, then some cop used to maybe he still lives a couple houses over. Not that I remember it but I have heard there was a time that if You where doing something you shouldn't (maybe smoking by the railroad tracks) you're mothers neighbor would fix you good and then when you got home, it would be Dad's turn if it was something really bad, and you would hide in fear. I don't only want to blame the suburbs cause they are not the only reason we have lost that. What the other reasons are I'm not sure. I know that I should know the people who live around me, but sometimes it is tough. For an example I was walking home one day and these two guys asked for help. It was the dried up extra black top stuff, I had seen them the few days previous working on some construction thing, so I figured fine the extra scrap is there's. So a couple days later I read about some guy who broke into a church and got caught. So I run into the black guy who I helped and he tells me the white boy who was with him, tried to have sex with his girlfriend (they where friends or something not sure) and that he broke into a church, and this was the guy I was trying to help, now I don't want to try and help any one. How am I supposed to trust anyone. So I go home and watch my TV or maybe a movie or something, yes gadgets are nice but they can make you more isolated.

uncutsaniflush - 04/17/09 21:51
(e:dcoffee) - just for the record, most of the soldiers that I've known have seen combat but I didn't mention them because they were drafted. My stepfather was a veteran of World War 2. Many of my neighbors when I was growing were veterans of the Korean War. And many of my friends older brothers were drafted to fight in Vietman. Some of them even returned alive but a litte worse for the wear and tear on their souls. The only people I know who served in the first Gulf War were Reservists who unfortunately died in Kuwait.

Over the years, I've known a lot of soldiers.
By the time they have seen combat, I agree, most soldiers are selfless.

dcoffee - 04/17/09 21:29
Whatever occupation you choose, money really shouldn't be your first concern. We have different talents, and we should do what we're good at, that's what makes us happy. And that's how we live up to our full potential.

But I'm kind of focusing on the idea that, taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.

I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.

I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.

Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.

Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..

Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?

about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.

dcoffee - 04/17/09 12:45
I'm focusing on the idea that taxes are always bad, and that keeping 'my money' will magically make life better. I can definitely understand the idea of cutting wasteful spending, and reducing the deficit and our national debt.. I really think Obama understands that too. But to cut Social Security and Medicare? Sure they need to be more efficient, but life without them would be terrible.

I could have talked about all the offensive signs about socialism, and fascism (these people obviously have no clue what fascism means) but I wanted to talk about the central argument, Taxes, and weather or not life would be better without them.

I think this anti-tax stuff is a symptom of our rabid individualism, and I think Americans need a little more "We're in this thing together, and we're going to have to cooperate to to make life better for all of us" And it matters how people are doing, not just myself.

Tax money should absolutely be spent wisely, but we NEED to pool our resources, we need to work collectively. I think this anti-tax thing is also an impulse because people don't trust government. Fix the government, don't starve it to death.

Alright, here's the solution, I should write a post on this. Ready..

Democratic Taxation, Instead of handing over a lump sum to the government, you prioritize your values. Say there's 20 different funds, education, war, environment, healthcare, retirement, assistance to the poor, etc. You chose your own priorities, 20% here, 30% there, 50% for that. I spend my money like I'm voting. I do this every day when I go to the local restaurant, not applebees or burger king. Why not do taxes the same way?

about Soldiers. Most of the ones I've met are at weddings, and they've been in combat. They get married and ship off again in a few weeks. Why they joined may have been motivated by many things (cash, education, direction), but what they do, is selfless, and you see care and dignity on their faces. Don't get me wrong, I think those in power like to keep us poor and desperate so we might end up in their war machine. But my point is that we all value selflessness, the hardest right winger will say "thanks for your service" and they honor the idea that this person has sacrificed something for all of us. Being selfless is human. This individualistic stuff sounds good, but it's not as valuable as selflessness.

jason - 04/17/09 11:45
When people start bringing straw man arguments to the table, and ridiculously lazy thinking such as calling it sour grapes, or using bumper sticker slogans, it isn't about desiring an intellectual discussion. People who shit on these protesters don't want to understand the other side or their concerns - they just want to ridicule and play make believe about the nature of their own counter argument.

Now, I'm not going to criticize it any further than that, because I used to shit on the burnouts at Bidwell all the time, and the same thing applies to how I treated them. If you want to simply make fun of them, have at it. Nothing wrong with it. I didn't attend a tea party because, like the war protesters, if you're not in power you don't get to make the rules. Tough luck. Obama won't listen to the Tea Party protesters any more than Bush listened to the war protesters. I just think in most cases it's pointless other than to blow off some steam.

I think there is a difference between what America IS, and what America COULD or SHOULD be. I think there is some confusion about America being a fan of collectivism to the extent that the European Socialists are. We're not, and that's not who we are today. E Pluribus Unum has nothing to do with this.

If you decide to be an elementary teacher, instead of a developer, you know in general the amount of money you make will likely be less. I don't understand how that's cruel, or unlucky for the teacher who weighs this when choosing what to do with his life.

If you're the taker instead of the giver overall, it's easy to think of yourself as having more freedom. Of course you do, in the example of a society where education costs nil to students, you are free to not have to pay for your own education. That's someone else's burden. I'm sure it would be liberating. I'd love if I could saddle some other asshole with my student loans.

It sounds like all I'm doing is criticizing, but the bottom line is this - I agree with you to an extent that it is our obligation to look after each other. We are in this together. I do agree that the current model of health care needs to be modified. I do believe in taking care of your brother man. What we have in America is a love of mocking and shitting on your brother man instead of listening to them. Who is immune? Nobody! =(

What I don't agree with is the idea of government taking the money you would normally donate, and deciding for themselves what's appropriate. That's not freedom. I do not agree with creating an even bigger bureaucracy than already exists, and giving the government more control of my life cheaply or freely. I do not agree with the baby boomers saddling us with ongoing expenses that we can't afford, and not talking about how we're supposed to sustain this level of government long-term without saddling the common man with a bigger tax burden. Howard Zinn has an idea - get rid of the DoD, and get rid of capitalism. It always comes down to getting rid of capitalism for that guy.

Now, I already know one of the questions I'm going to get because it's always the first one when I debate this stuff - "So Jason, what about Boooosh?" Yeah, I hated the bank giveaways too. I know the *real* Libs are upset by Obama's continuation of this stuff. Which by the way, we are going to have to all pay for eventually. We're all going to be eating freaking health pellets by the end of all of this.

uncutsaniflush - 04/17/09 11:37
I'm with (e:jenks) on soldiers. I, personally, known people who joined the military so that they could get:
1. technical training while in the service
2. college educations with the G.I. bill afer they leave the service
3. avoid jail (joining the military was part of a plea bargain)
4. be a musician in an Army band
5. get away from an abusive home situation
6. a job after being laid off
7. a job after high school with no prospects of a job in their hometown.

Of course, this was inbetween wars, so they probably didn't expect to see combat.

Perhaps it is different now, but I don't think so. Alternet.org has good (imho) discussion of why young people join the military: :::link:::

jenks - 04/17/09 10:55
just to play devil's advocate- I'm not sure that everyone that joins the military does so out of a simple pure desire to help people. I know plenty who have joined b/c either they 1- couldn't do anything else, or 2- just wanted the perks, and were betting that they'd never actually have to serve. Felt like it was an 'easy' way to a 'free ride'.

libertad - 04/17/09 09:17
OH those teabaggers! I like what your father and law said.

metalpeter - 04/16/09 17:41
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? -----

dcoffee - 04/16/09 11:49
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.

james - 04/16/09 11:42
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.

janelle - 04/16/09 10:11
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.

paul - 04/16/09 09:58
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.

james - 04/16/09 09:05
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.

janelle - 04/16/09 08:35
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.

zobar - 04/16/09 07:55

This used to be real estate, now it's only fields and trees. Where have they gone? Now it's nothing but flowers. The highways and cars were sacrificed for agriculture. I thought that we'd start over, but I guess I was wrong...

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.

...and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention.

- Z

heidi - 04/15/09 23:55
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.