Jump to content
Scott, the first paragraphs in your last comment make my point. In describing YVHA investing, you are describing the investing behavior of millions of Americans and thousands of boards during 2007. YVHA’s “great mistake” investment was so repeated across the country that it became the nationally defining mistake of the collapse.
Your Hillside criticism relies on revising YVHA’s purpose there. Raising rent above a break-even basis does not reflect Hillside’s past, yet your premise is that raising rents into a profit should be Hillside’s future. On this premise you scold YVHA for how they applied Hillside equity? Hillside is home to the folks who most need housing assistance. You think we should, and could, finance new projects by raising their rent. Seriously?
Your next paragraph is baloney. But you do think a lot of yourself to pass such judgment.
Next you advise, “All they need to do is buy existing rental property where current rents are in the affordable range and be sure that rents cover costs and debt payments.” YVHA buying existing rental property today is not a wise use of their funds. Maybe if someone offered a great deal in a slack market it made some sense, but during a tight market it does not. Displacing one set of workers to house another set of workers in today’s rental market accomplishes next to nothing.
Scott, your many YVHA critiques ignore the recession's affect on YVHA investments. Of course the recession wrecked millions of housing investments. Thousands of investors and boards experienced equity losses similar in scale to those of YVHA. Given your critique completely ignores the recession's impacts, why do you expect readers to take you seriously?
You also ignore the difficulty of YVHA's mission: providing affordable housing when it is needed. Waiting for market lows was a luxury they did not have in 2007. On the revenue end, their renters and purchasers are by definition lower income. Doesn't sound like an easy job to me.
Deeper into the fantasy. As if the military is ever in charge of domestic policy or where they are sent to fight.
Not interested in such a ridiculous conversation.
You've gotten your answer dozens of times. If statements from the military can't convince you, no one EVER, EVER will.
Your posts are perfect though. Pigeonholing everyone and everything into your fantastic paradigm, as you do below and above, is perfect. Keep it up.
I agree with your text, except I feel some agricultural $$ backing is smart. Yes to smaller farms and yes to less GMO crap. The linked video is a guy in a ditch pointing to topsoil?
Show no mercy.
That was not the military making the Iraq WMD call.
We endorse the reality we understand. Many have the luxury of picking or ignoring facts to reinforce that reality. I won't claim to be above anyone else in this regard. But one institution has people allowed little of this luxury. They frequently pay the real price, live with deadly serious facts, and serve for us in the real gutters of the world. That would be our military. You walk away from their report on climate too easily. Far too easily.
Can you elaborate further your argument on the airline program? They need high occupancy flights to meet the guarantee - it is obviously harder to fill larger jets.
The vast majority of regional airport service in the US is subsidized. Last I looked there was a clear trend of these airports losing service. Hard to argue their sustainability. My argument to the LMD board and CC was for 5 year passenger service projections in each LMD program budget. They did a 5 year projection for the ballot campaign (since proven very wrong), and venture none since.
Actual emission quantities give necessary context to the rankings.
Country / Annual CO2 emissions (in thousands of metric tons)
United States 5,752,289
European Union 3,908,662
United Kingdom 568,520
South Korea 475,248
South Africa 414,649
Saudi Arabia 381,564
You said above, "The USA has already cut CO2 emissions, but China has increased their emissions far more than we've cut." So US-China agreement gains more CO2 reduction from China than from the US, as their future economic growth and CO2 potential outweighs ours.
Remains to be seen how well the accord is met, but the accord between world's 2 largest CO2 emitters is a good step.
Last login: Sunday, March 22, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.