Ride an SUB not an SUV

On Mar 9, 3:41 pm, "nash" wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ation_Book.jpg

That would mean males needing loving domination and the girls being the
mother of necessity.

I think that if males want to be like Napoleon, ladies want to be like
Josefina. And how else show their power --and stupidity-- than in an
SUV? But let the experts do a psychological profile of the femme
fatale...

"There are a number of commonly accepted reasons explaining why women
seem to be flocking to the SUV dealerships. Women above everything
else are looking for a safe vehicle. Recent reports have been
indicating that the bigger automobiles handle crashes better and also
due to their size SUVs provide a better driving view than other
smaller cars. The bigger the car the better. This size also allows a
person, no matter what their size to feel big and powerful."

http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~WS30/HKFinalProject.html

I guess only a Waterloo can wake them up to reality.

In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.

I think you have it backwards. It is the *current* transit system that
micromanages your schedule to match theirs.

It tries to, yes. But it fails to, so ends up with empty vehicles.
The occasional (or more than occasional) runs and routes which are in
place for political reasons don't help either.

Maybe, but I can't say because I don't know the reference. It's not
something that could be done with just a train, but the reality is that
many modern transit systems need an overhaul and restructuring for
service as though people mattered.

But people -- that is, riders -- don't matter in transit. What
matters is the politicians, transit unions, urban planners, and
anti-car advocates (but I repeat myself).

The only "fantasy" device I employ is, when people say they *need* a
car, a hypothetical personal teleporter. If they'd be willing to give
up their car for one, then the real discussion begins on practical
alternatives to get from point A to point B car-free.

As long as the _real_ devices for getting from point A to point B
car-free are not nearly as good as a car, why should people consider
them? What's so specifically bad about cars, that wouldn't be a
problem with other _actual_ ways of getting around?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ,
Baxter wrote:
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.

Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Nope, it's more a matter of supply than demand. There's far more space in
the suburbs than the city.

Actually not. There' plenty of room in the city, but the developers can't
use production-line techniques.

They can and they do. The houses may be of brick-faced cinderblock
instead of vinyl-sided (or brick-faced) wood, but they're just as
"production-line".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:34:50 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:

You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a little
AC.

They were talking about Texas and Arkansas, and besides, this is
simply a variant on normal fan cooling, not air conditioining in the
current sense. It very much DOES work in Kansas, it DOES work in
Texas, it DOES work in Arkansas. It may not work as well in Southern
California or Houston-Corpus Christi, but it will work better than a
normal fan system in making a house more comfortable and livable even
there.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance, etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

You're wrong. Until recently, the issue is that banks would loan money on
suburban houses but not on city houses.

Now that's a load of horsecrap.

Being able to eliminate one car
saves a family $6,000 per year - which adds up quickly.

On my TWO cars last year, I spent less than that. Considerably less.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend
more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance,
etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

You're wrong. Until recently, the issue is that banks would loan money
on
suburban houses but not on city houses.

Now that's a load of horsecrap.

Until relatively recently, neither FHA nor VA would loan money to buy a
house in any "inner-city" neighborhood. They would only finance suburban
houses. That's historical fact you can look up.


Being able to eliminate one car
saves a family $6,000 per year - which adds up quickly.

On my TWO cars last year, I spent less than that. Considerably less.

$6000/year is the AAA average figure for a mid-range car. For every one who
spends a little less, there's someone else who spends more. And you spend a
lot more than you think you did on your two cars.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their
house?
About negative $100K.

Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand
that
the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Nope, it's more a matter of supply than demand. There's far more space
in
the suburbs than the city.

Actually not. There' plenty of room in the city, but the developers
can't
use production-line techniques.

They can and they do. The houses may be of brick-faced cinderblock
instead of vinyl-sided (or brick-faced) wood, but they're just as
"production-line".

Production line materials and quality, perhaps - but they could NOT be built
with production-line -techniques-, because infill lots are not close enough
together.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Yeah,
And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.

And again, $3 gas is lost in the noise.

Although my area has seen no such property value crash; it simply
isn't increasing as fast as it did.

We actually had a mini-crash here. The builder is still putting up new
homes but the ones that were going for about $350,000 last year now seem
to be priced at about $250,000. There are also a lot of lived in (for a
while) homes being listed through real estate agents at less than they
originally sold for. Even at the reduced price I would not want one
since the developer decided to cram the houses on the smallest lots
possible and the houses are mostly pre-fab junk. Who really wants a
2,500 square foot house on a lot with 6 feet of clearance to the
neighbors fence?
Bill Baka

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.
Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Nope, it's more a matter of supply than demand. There's far more space in
the suburbs than the city.

There's no space on the house lots. The developer built them as if dirt
was $1,000 a square foot. Houses in the city have more property.
I checked when they were being built and the utilities are underground
but there was no attempt to run fiber for high speed Internet. Better to
live in the city.
Bill Baka

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance, etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

In this case I am talking Sacramento (affordable) and not Silicon Valley
(not affordable). Saving $25,000 on a house and commuting 10+ hours a
week, plus gas, wearing out a new car (2 if the wife works), and no time
left during the week, does not add up. Cars don't build equity, but
houses do, usually.
Bill Baka