Green New Deal for Public Housing

@livinglava,

Quote:

Using public housing as ...
...sounds like a good idea.

Sure, on the surface of it.

Quote:

Putting people to work remediating where they live...

Many people who live in public housing have full time jobs or several part time gigs. Where do you suppose they'll find time for this?

Others are elderly and/or have various health issues. They are in many cases, not physically able to do this. This is why there are maintenance personnel. This too is why people are contracted and brought in from outside of the public housing developments.

Quote:

But why does there need to be a government program to achieve this?

See my earlier comments.

Quote:

People who live in public housing...

Sure sounds good. However, many people in public housing are living at or below the poverty line. Many are struggling to stay slightly above. Will the government supply those who can do these tasks with financing? Further, isn't the rent being paid meant for these things?

Why is it that the administrators of the housing project aren't handling these matters?

Quote:

Insulate certain rooms...

Shouldn't all rooms be insulated? Otherwise, if a door to a non-insulated room is opened, heating or cooling from another space will be siphoned off.

Quote:

Shade...

How much shading do you expect to be able to provide for an apartment several stories up? As in some twenty feet or more above the tree line?

Quote:

...single well insulated room can serve that need.

Really? So you plan to shove several people (possibly 7 or 8 or more) into one room? Keep in mind, the rooms in public housing aren't usually very large.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Many people who live in public housing have full time jobs or several part time gigs. Where do you suppose they'll find time for this?

By not working more than full time. Why does anyone need to work more than full time?

Quote:

Others are elderly and/or have various health issues. They are in many cases, not physically able to do this. This is why there are maintenance personnel. This too is why people are contracted and brought in from outside of the public housing developments.

If you read the Sanders/AOC proposal, they go from saying residents should do their own work to saying 'local' workers from within a 50 mile radius should do it.

It's a contradiction to go from saying people should do their own labor to saying people who live in suburbs 50 miles away should get the job. They just don't think about what their words actually mean in practice, only how they sound at the theoretical level.

Quote:

Sure sounds good. However, many people in public housing are living at or below the poverty line. Many are struggling to stay slightly above. Will the government supply those who can do these tasks with financing? Further, isn't the rent being paid meant for these things?

"The poverty line" is a dollar amount that doesn't reflect the realities of how people live and what they do and don't need to pay for.

There is exploitation built into the fundamental nature of rental housing. People should really all own their own housing so they can be personally responsible for the labor of maintenance/repairs/improvements/etc. The problem is that many people aren't responsible and if the responsibility is in their hands, they just shirk it and let the place go to hell and then complain that it's someone else's responsibility to fix their roof or plumbing or whatever.

Quote:

Why is it that the administrators of the housing project aren't handling these matters?

The politics of what responsibility falls on whom is why managers and administrators take such a big share of rents and other moneys spent. If people would work harder to manage themselves and their property efficiently, the costs would also fall in line (provided there aren't people manipulating the situation and costs to get paid more as administrators/managers/personnel/etc.).

Quote:

Shouldn't all rooms be insulated? Otherwise, if a door to a non-insulated room is opened, heating or cooling from another space will be siphoned off.

Well, you have to start somewhere and my point is that it is less efficient to insulate a larger space than a smaller one and that unheated/uncooled rooms/areas can serve as a buffer zone between outdoors and indoors.

For optimal energy efficiency/conservation, you would want to have the best-insulated rooms/zones in the most central part of a dwelling, and then have other insulated rooms/zones around it to retain runoff heating/cooling from the central area.

So in summer, for example, let's say you have one room that is very well-insulated and has a small air-conditioner to keep that room at, say, 75F for someone who has a health need for that low of a temp. That room is going to leak cold air whenever the door is opened, so if the room it opens into is also pretty well insulated, it will stay slightly cooler than other rooms/zones, which should be shaded and/or ventilated to evacuate stagnant humidity. Overall, you can use the forces of nature to cool a dwelling and move air through it as breeze, but there's no set formula for achieving that as it differs depending on the various factors in the surroundings and weather conditions, etc.

Quote:

How much shading do you expect to be able to provide for an apartment several stories up? As in some twenty feet or more above the tree line?

Insulated attics are designed to heat up the attic air so that it rises through vents and generates a vacuum to draw in outside air. More reflective roofs stay cooler and the attic doesn't heat up as much, but another option is to put solar panels that shade the roof and allow air to flow underneath them so that heat doesn't build up in the attic.

Many things are possible when you understand the 'materials' you're working with, i.e. sunlight, shade, air flow, insulation, etc. and think innovatively about how to sculpt those materials for optimum energy conservation.

Quote:

Really? So you plan to shove several people (possibly 7 or 8 or more) into one room? Keep in mind, the rooms in public housing aren't usually very large.

Not at all. I think the standard to start with is the tiny house or shipping container house, which is about enough space for a single individual to have a single room plus small kitchen and bathroom. If multiple individuals can share a kitchen and/or other common areas, great. The question is which rooms really need to be air-conditioned/heated, to what temperature, and for whom and why (e.g. health conditions).

In many cases, people just need a cool, air-conditioned room to take refuge in briefly when coming inside after being hot outdoors. Once they cool down, they can sit in a shaded, well-ventilated room with fans and be comfortable. Same goes for heating. If you need to warm your bones from cold, you need a small, warm area to do so, and then you can move to a well-insulated but cooler room where you wear a sweatshirt/suit or other warm clothing so that the temperature can remain lower but above freezing. Also, when you are in a cold room with warm clothes on, a cup of hot tea and/or some exercise can warm you up a lot.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

People who live in public housing or any other housing can buy insulation, frame in a room with 2x4s, fill the gaps between the 2x4s with insulation.

Are you advocating for inferior buildings to live in? Many people are not familiar with building codes, have tools to build or have certifications for proper inspection.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

livinglava wrote:
People who live in public housing or any other housing can buy insulation, frame in a room with 2x4s, fill the gaps between the 2x4s with insulation.

Are you advocating for inferior buildings to live in? Many people are not familiar with building codes, have tools to build or have certifications for proper inspection.

The point you're raising is a common one espoused by Democrats/unionists who want to set standards that create more jobs, produce more expensive products/housing, etc.;

. . . but the question is how inefficient it is to do things in the way you suggest when the inefficiencies of industrialism are the cause of unsustainability that we are trying to fix.

If you want sustainability, you need to conserve resources, and if you want to conserve resources, you need to design housing, infrastructure, transportation, and other aspects of how people live with the long-term climate and other environmental effects in mind.

It is not that hard to install installation. If you can affix a 2x4/2x6 to a wall and put insulation between the studs, you can start with a single room and put your one-room heater or air-conditioner in that room.

If you need help putting up the 2x4s/2x6s and you can't get it by watching Youtube videos, someone could probably be found who would come out and install the first few studs with you to show you how it's done.

It's really not that hard. Many people are just afraid of doing even the simplest handy work. Once you get the hang of it, it is no harder than cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, or any other household task.

Insulation is really just putting blankets up on your wall and getting them to stay up so that you can cover them with paneling. Then you just need to seal the edges in the paneling so air doesn't leak through the wall. You could just use duct tape to seal the holes if you don't want to bother with caulk. Doing this for an entire house can be daunting, but in a single room it's not that much work.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Building codes are in place so that safety issues aren't lackadaisical as you portray. There's a reason why 16" on center is a valid point, grounding of electrical outlets being a maximum of 8' apart and GFI's which you fail to mention all have pertinent places in building codes.

You fail to mention vapor barriers, load bearing joists and walls and inspections for code compliance.

That's not a Youtube video, that's certified and qualified knowledge someone not in the building trades would know. Yet, you want that in Public Housing. So, no, that's not something that you would want to argue about.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Building codes are in place so that safety issues aren't lackadaisical as you portray. There's a reason why 16" on center is a valid point, grounding of electrical outlets being a maximum of 8' apart and GFI's which you fail to mention all have pertinent places in building codes.

You fail to mention vapor barriers, load bearing joists and walls and inspections for code compliance.

That's not a Youtube video, that's certified and qualified knowledge someone not in the building trades would know. Yet, you want that in Public Housing. So, no, that's not something that you would want to argue about.

All I am talking about is putting up insulation within an existing room. You can put up brackets on the existing studs and then attack 2x4s or 2x6s to frame in the insulation rolls/blankets, or use some other method to hold them up on the walls and ceiling so they don't fall down.

You could have an inspector come and check residents' work to make sure they didn't do anything that violates code.

Certain Youtube videos or other online instructions can be suggested as guides to follow.

It doesn't have to cost a lot or generate a lot of employment. Government/Democrats/unions will want it to do that, because they are all about spreading around money, but it's not necessary. Residents can achieve a lot with a little of their own labor.

It's just putting up blankets on the inside of rooms' wall and ceilings.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You're getting ridiculous.

Renters cannot just "attach" 2x4's to existing walls, it covers electrical outlets, right of ways, windows and doors.

Why are you making it a renter's responsibility to be held accountable for building safe, legal and energy efficient housing?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

You're getting ridiculous.

Renters cannot just "attach" 2x4's to existing walls, it covers electrical outlets, right of ways, windows and doors.

Why are you making it a renter's responsibility to be held accountable for building safe, legal and energy efficient housing?

I could ask you why you're being so negative and restrictive regarding what renters can do with the inside of their rooms, but I have already gathered that you are on the side of those who want to regulate everything to drive up the costs and thus jobs produced instead of keeping things simple and efficient.

You can just attach a 2x4 to an existing wall. There are simple brackets that you can screw into the stud, and then the 2x4 would fit into the brackets. It is easier to affix a 2x4 to a wall than mount a TV.

Once you have a new set of studs effectively mounted on the inside walls, you just unroll the insulation blankets and put them in between the studs using tape or elastic rope or something to hold them up. I like the elastic rope because you can easily adjust the blanket behind it.

Once you get all those insulation blankets up on the wall and ceiling, you will probably want to cover them with paneling. You may be right about putting a vapor barrier between the insulation and the paneling, I'm not sure about that; but I'm sure there is a simple way to post such information on a website for people to check, or call their residence manager.

You ask why make tenants responsible for doing their own work? Because it empowers them to take their fates into their own hands to some degree. It makes people into victims when you force them to ask others for everything they get. You create a culture where the only thing people do for themselves is ask for money so they can pay others to do everything for them. That is the opposite of economic freedom.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

In your method livinglava, you might well be rushed to a meeting with God as you'll likely electrocute yourself.

...or have a wall of ceiling fall on you.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

In your method livinglava, you might well be rushed to a meeting with God as you'll likely electrocute yourself.

...or have a wall of ceiling fall on you.

You could say the same thing about mounting a TV on a wall bracket, but you'd be even more wrong because that puts more stress on a wall than affixing a vertical 2x4 or 2x6.

How can you electrocute yourself mounting 2x4s on the inside of a room by screwing brackets into the studs? You work around the outlets.

All you are really doing is putting blankets up on your walls and ceilings. If you can't figure out how to deal with outlets without creating a fire-hazard, then have an electrician who comes in to deal with that aspect.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Because adding extra 2x4's on interior walls creates a fire hazard. If you knew about building codes, you'd know that's a air channel and illegal.

Again, why are you thinking renters are responsible for upholding safe, legal and energy efficient housing?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Because adding extra 2x4's on interior walls creates a fire hazard. If you knew about building codes, you'd know that's a air channel and illegal.

Then why isn't it illegal to install shelving?

Quote:

Again, why are you thinking renters are responsible for upholding safe, legal and energy efficient housing?

Sanders and AOC proposed a "Green New Deal for Public Housing." They want to remediate public housing as an example of how to make buildings more sustainable. They also want to employ residents to do the work. I was just responding to their proposal in a way that would miminize costs and thus government expenditure and thus taxpayer burden. My hope is that good ideas can get votes from both parties if they address concerns of both parties, which means minimizing costs and avoiding shifting the burden to taxpayers/government.

I suspect that Sanders/AOC intention, as with the Democrats and unions generally, is less to remediate housing as it is to create growth and jobs. In short, they don't want to improve quality of life at a lower cost, and thus make the economy more efficient using less resources and thus more sustainable.

Instead, they just want to create programs that have big price tags, which stimulates investors to put their money into the economy, where it can be spent by managers on personnel and supplies. Managers will do this if they get the funding, and the result will be more resources being converted into materials using more energy and the people paid to do it will take the money they make and go drive around spending it on consumer goods that are also made from resources using energy and transported on paved highways and roads using huge warehouses and other buildings that displace trees and other ecological land.

If you want sustainability, you have to reduce the footprint of the industrial economy, and that means doing things more efficiently and locally. That doesn't mean workers driving 30 miles from a suburb to a public housing complex to tear the place apart and rebuild it with new materials. It means using a minimum of labor and materials to produce certain well-insulated rooms/zones where heating and air-conditioning are contained, thus reducing energy-use to a fraction of what is currently the norm.

I just suggested a way that residents could install their own insulation so that the cost would be low and the effect significant, but Dems/unions will always block this kind of sensible, prudent, low-cost and thus cost-effective innovation because they want more big spending to generate more big growth and jobs because they think that industrialism is fine and it just needs to be expanded to include everyone in the world and nevermind what it does to the planet and climate to have everyone driving around shopping in an industrial-consumer paradigm.

The resistance of the left to reducing the economic footprint of socialism and thus its environmental footprint is impairing the pursuit of sustainability and alienating those who want to push back inflation and waste so that people can save money without it being worthless in a few decades time.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I understand what you're trying to do. But minimizing costs versus safe and legal remediation of old housing is another. You're not taking in account for lead paint removal, updating electrical lines to current code and technology, replacing old boilers and gas furnaces, removal of lead pipes, adding fiber optic cables, energy efficient appliances, windows and security doors.

Your suggestion of installing insulation is barbaric. Insulation is a carcinogen and you want to secure it to a wall with bungee cords and packing tape. Again, adding a faux wall to an interior wall is an air chamber, ripe for fire to travel. Safety issues doesn't seem to be a priority to you, only that poor people still have to their own proponent for their own survival.

This isn't a democratic versus republican viewpoint. It's how you will blame others for the failure of management to provide safe, legal and energy efficient housing.

Do you think your idea would fly at Trump Tower?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

I understand what you're trying to do. But minimizing costs versus safe and legal remediation of old housing is another. You're not taking in account for lead paint removal, updating electrical lines to current code and technology, replacing old boilers and gas furnaces, removal of lead pipes, adding fiber optic cables, energy efficient appliances, windows and security doors.

What I'm saying is that if you have people living in old housing, and there's not new housing for them to move into (yet), then there are ways to insulate a single room or small zone within their existing home that could be done with inexpensive materials and mostly their own labor.

When Democrats get indignant about substandard housing for the poor, it mostly comes across to conservatives as an excuse to max out someone else's credit card. If you were spending your own money on these things instead of taxing the rich, you would have different ideas about how to keep costs down.

I think the main thing that Republicans would like Democrats to do in terms of fiscal responsibility is to start treating taxpayer money like it's coming out of their own pocket instead of someone else's.

Quote:

Your suggestion of installing insulation is barbaric. Insulation is a carcinogen and you want to secure it to a wall with bungee cords and packing tape. Again, adding a faux wall to an interior wall is an air chamber, ripe for fire to travel. Safety issues doesn't seem to be a priority to you, only that poor people still have to their own proponent for their own survival.

I was thinking about more sustainable and health-friendly insulation, which maybe still needs to be developed. Possibly some kind of foam-rubber or styrofoam, but not fiberglass, as you seem to be implying.

I'm basically thinking about putting up sheets of styrofoam, which are sold in most hardware stores; but I think more sustainable types could be developed as well, made out of some kind of seaweed or kelp or other abundant biotic material that comes from the ocean so growing it doesn't displace forests and/or crops.

Quote:

This isn't a democratic versus republican viewpoint. It's how you will blame others for the failure of management to provide safe, legal and energy efficient housing.

It is, because if someone taxed you to pay for such things, you would claim it is unfair because other people make more money than you do. Basically, many Democrats support big spending only because it comes out of the pockets of the rich and rich corporation. That is fiscally irresponsible, causes inflation, and causes other economic irrationalities. For a free market to work, people have to spend and thus manage their own money, not that of others.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Seaweed or kelp.

I really laughed out loud. You want poor people who live in subsidized housing to build with their own money, time and inexperience on a building they don't own nor have experience in safety codes to hold out for...seaweed and kelp.

Although that can be something to explore in the future, that doesn't excuse the fact you'd prefer poor people to make a decision to stay warm in substandard housing now, by adding fake walls that are an extreme fire hazard.

Again, when not IF, a fire breaks out, killing occupants, who should be to blame for that?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Seaweed or kelp.

I really laughed out loud. You want poor people who live in subsidized housing to build with their own money, time and inexperience on a building they don't own nor have experience in safety codes to hold out for...seaweed and kelp.

You are so negative. Just because I suggest some sustainable DIY foam-insulation product could be developed from seaweed/kelp doesn't mean there aren't other options, albeit less sustainable, that are already currently available, such as styrofoam panels and/or foam rubber. Foam rubber is, sadly, more expensive because of its use as bedding and/or carpet underpadding, but with the right price-negotiations could be bought in bulk more affordably.

Quote:

Although that can be something to explore in the future, that doesn't excuse the fact you'd prefer poor people to make a decision to stay warm in substandard housing now, by adding fake walls that are an extreme fire hazard.

Again, when not IF, a fire breaks out, killing occupants, who should be to blame for that?

Part of free speech is putting out ideas that aren't (yet) tested. You don't get to take advice from random strangers on the internet and then blame them if you set your house on fire. Obviously my intent is not to trick people into burning their houses down. People have to know how to innovate responsibly. They shouldn't indulge in ignorance and then blame others for things they could have prevented using basic concepts they learned in school.

I don't think hanging up insulation inside a room is any more risky than hanging up tapestries, paintings, etc. If you have a temperature of 60F in a room whose walls are covered in styrofoam paneling, do you think it would cause a fire? I don't think it would, but you can always call a fire marshal and ask before you try it.

Can you at least admit it would conserve energy to cover the inside wall of a single room or zone with styrofoam and/or foam rubber insulation and then keep the temperature in that area at around 60F? Residents would be saving on their heating bill while conserving energy for sustainability. How is that not a win-win, assuming they can get it inspected by a fire marshal or other expert before doing it in a way that starts a fire?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I still don't get why you're putting the burden of safe, legal and energy efficient housing on the renter. It is not their responsibility - - it is the owner's ethical, moral and legal responsibility.

Again, you have a very limited knowledge base on construction, building codes, safety protocols, and legal obligation.

What I don't see you suggest is, having owners be responsible for providing safe, legal and energy efficient housing.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

I still don't get why you're putting the burden of safe, legal and energy efficient housing on the renter. It is not their responsibility - - it is the owner's ethical, moral and legal responsibility.

Good practices and sustainability are everyone's responsibility, but everyone should do their best to do as much as they can for themselves first and only seek help from others in the most minimal ways that will help them help themselves.

So, for example, people should first consider what they need and then consider how to get/achieve it on their own. Then, when they encounter obstacles in their path to self-realization, they should consider the most efficient route to overcoming those obstacles and approach others for help in a way that explains their POV about what they need and why/how it's the most efficient way.

So instead of thinking in terms of getting as much as possible from the economy because you feel inequality is unfair, you should think about achieving what is good for everyone, including yourself and future generations and the permanent sustainability of the climate.

Then, if you decide you can save energy by insulating a small zone of your home but you need an expert on fire-hazards to review your plans and/or inspect your work, then you should seek that. If you need insulation but can't afford it, you should try to think of the least burdensome means of acquiring the materials you need, such as cooperating with others in need to place a bulk order from a manufacturer to get the lowest price. If you need money to pay the manufacturer, you should make a case about how you have come up with the most cost-efficient plan and negotiated the best price and thus make a case to the donors that you are saving them as much money as possible with your plan.

If you do all that, it is much more reasonable to seek assistance than to demand it based on indignant feelings that economic inequalities are unjust. There have always been and always will be inequalities, but justice requires that we care enough about others to help them overcome those inequalities, not by seeking equality, which is an imaginary concept that doesn't exist in reality, but by seeking the means to achieve the best and most responsible solutions for our problems, which also cause the least problems for others and future sustainability.

Quote:

Again, you have a very limited knowledge base on construction, building codes, safety protocols, and legal obligation.

What I don't see you suggest is, having owners be responsible for providing safe, legal and energy efficient housing.

Because that would cause a situation where tenants can abuse and exploit owners, who might then want to evict them rather than submit to their demands.

Ideally, people should all own their own domiciles. To the extent that's not possible for various reasons, people should be as responsible for the property they rent as they can. If I borrow/rent something from you, for example, I should take care of it as well as if it belonged to me and seek to return it in as good or better condition than I first received it.

People suffer from various amounts of economic disempowerment, so they/we have to depend on others for help in various ways. Still, we should do our best to minimize the burdens we shift to others and put effort into solving our own problems with consideration of how doing so can help others help us with less burden to themselves. With this kind of mutually-considerate cooperation, we could achieve a lot more than by arguing over inequalities and entitlements.

0 Replies

Green New Deal for Public Housing

Quick Links

My Account

able2know