Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM in reply to: The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon? #668038
Aecetia
ParticipantBoth sides like to paint it as an either or position. Pay public employees more or they will be laid off, when there are other alternatives to explore such as have public employees contributing more to their retirement or pick up more of their health care costs. Most private employees pay for a portion of their health care, etc. The old scare tactic of laying off police and fire is a tired old tactic.
February 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM in reply to: The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon? #668099ParticipantBoth sides like to paint it as an either or position. Pay public employees more or they will be laid off, when there are other alternatives to explore such as have public employees contributing more to their retirement or pick up more of their health care costs. Most private employees pay for a portion of their health care, etc. The old scare tactic of laying off police and fire is a tired old tactic.
February 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM in reply to: The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon? #668706ParticipantBoth sides like to paint it as an either or position. Pay public employees more or they will be laid off, when there are other alternatives to explore such as have public employees contributing more to their retirement or pick up more of their health care costs. Most private employees pay for a portion of their health care, etc. The old scare tactic of laying off police and fire is a tired old tactic.
February 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM in reply to: The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon? #668845ParticipantBoth sides like to paint it as an either or position. Pay public employees more or they will be laid off, when there are other alternatives to explore such as have public employees contributing more to their retirement or pick up more of their health care costs. Most private employees pay for a portion of their health care, etc. The old scare tactic of laying off police and fire is a tired old tactic.
February 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM in reply to: The Pigs are Famous… OK act cool everybody, there a flood of new members on the horizon? #669188ParticipantBoth sides like to paint it as an either or position. Pay public employees more or they will be laid off, when there are other alternatives to explore such as have public employees contributing more to their retirement or pick up more of their health care costs. Most private employees pay for a portion of their health care, etc. The old scare tactic of laying off police and fire is a tired old tactic.
February 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #668028Participant[quote=EconProf]This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.[/quote]
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:February 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #668089Participant[quote=EconProf]This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.[/quote]
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:February 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #668696Participant[quote=EconProf]This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.[/quote]
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:February 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #668835Participant[quote=EconProf]This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.[/quote]
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:February 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #669178Participant[quote=EconProf]This is an interesting thread, because it delves into the issue of who really owns these beautiful old properties.
I love to drive by the old houses of Golden Hill, South Park, and Mission Hills and enjoy the different eras and styles they reveal. In doing so, I am deriving a positive externality courtesy of the home owners who keep them up so well. Selfishly, I want them to keep them as they are forever. If I can convince the government to help me protect that right, I have, in effect, gained a property right over that owner.
Is that fair to the owner? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit.[/quote]
I usually agree with you Econ. You are all about common sense, but this time, I am on the side of the defenseless house. It depends on how much interest the government takes in the property as to what the decision is:February 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #667109ParticipantI am with jp, what a shame. The interior wood used in the older places is usually beautiful if you can get the paint off it. The floors are hard wood. Yes the rooms are smaller, but there are usually ornate areas that more than make up for what you lack in square footage and cheaper to heat. Jobs is a jerk to do that.
I am sure he let it deteriorate on purpose as an excuse to tear it down. That is what was happening to the old “Dragon Cottages Colony” in La Jolla.
February 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #667170ParticipantI am with jp, what a shame. The interior wood used in the older places is usually beautiful if you can get the paint off it. The floors are hard wood. Yes the rooms are smaller, but there are usually ornate areas that more than make up for what you lack in square footage and cheaper to heat. Jobs is a jerk to do that.
I am sure he let it deteriorate on purpose as an excuse to tear it down. That is what was happening to the old “Dragon Cottages Colony” in La Jolla.
February 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #667776ParticipantI am with jp, what a shame. The interior wood used in the older places is usually beautiful if you can get the paint off it. The floors are hard wood. Yes the rooms are smaller, but there are usually ornate areas that more than make up for what you lack in square footage and cheaper to heat. Jobs is a jerk to do that.
I am sure he let it deteriorate on purpose as an excuse to tear it down. That is what was happening to the old “Dragon Cottages Colony” in La Jolla.
February 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM in reply to: When is a house historic and when is it a teardown? #667915ParticipantI am with jp, what a shame. The interior wood used in the older places is usually beautiful if you can get the paint off it. The floors are hard wood. Yes the rooms are smaller, but there are usually ornate areas that more than make up for what you lack in square footage and cheaper to heat. Jobs is a jerk to do that.
I am sure he let it deteriorate on purpose as an excuse to tear it down. That is what was happening to the old “Dragon Cottages Colony” in La Jolla.
-
AuthorPosts
