Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT gmail.com>]

Interesting.  Now there's a sign that the economy is on the mend 
<sarcasm>.  Is this supposed to be redistribution of wealth, or 
redistribution of debt?  Just how do they determine who will win this 
housing lotto? Does the homeless vet who walks the streets deserve it 
more than the divorced mother of three living out of her car?  Or, will 
the winner be the executive who lost his McMansion to foreclosure in 
2008?  Who determines who gets shelter, and how?  With no jobs, how will 
the winners be able to pay the taxes, or mow the lawns?

Can you tell that I've become even more disillusioned with government?  
I lost my job last month and applied for unemployment-supposed to be a 
safety net, right?  My old boss and others(based on my income mostly)  
told me that I should be able to get the maximum, which in GA is $350/wk 
gross.  Firstly, if you haven't been employed for at least 15 months(5 
quarters), all bets are off.  If you miss that by 3 days, tough luck, no 
cigar, it translates to less money. You can always appeal decisions, but 
it is pretty useless.  So I did not get the maximum.  To add insult to 
injury, I also missed getting the stimulus money (an additional $25/wk) 
by 10 days-I had to have filed a claim by the end of May.  I simply fell 
into unemployment no-man's land.  People say, oh don't worry, the 
Government is passing new legislation to help out with unemployment, 
putting more money into the system...and yeah, the bill passed, and yeah 
you guessed it, it applies only to those who have qualified for the 
maximum and then received the payment for the maximum of 26 weeks, but 
who are no longer getting the benefit.  Since I qualified for less than 
the maximum and only for 14 weeks, the new stuff doesn't apply to me.  
What it boils down to is that you had to have been working from at least 
Sept of 2008 through Dec of 2009(15 months), received unemployment from 
Jan 2010 to June 2010(26 weeks) in order to qualify for the additional 
monies.  That is a huge hoop to jump through, and I'd bet that 98% of 
people drawing unemployment in this state won't qualify.  So where does 
all of that money really go??  But I digress...

I guess my point is that if you read the news articles about 
unemployment and the additional monies directed to help stimulate the 
economy(and I really don't see how an additional $25 a week stimulates 
the economy, but that is another matter) everything sounds so wonderful, 
so rosy, so optimistic.   It sounds so fiscally great to turn city 
land-ball fields into housing plots (first cut PE out of the school 
curriculum, then cut it from the city budget, then eliminate it 
altogether and wonder why people are FAT!), but looking closer, I'm 
hoping that people will see all the pitfalls this creates.  It may look 
great on paper, but it will not help bring in tax money(those who win 
the housing lotto won't be able to pay) and it won't help those who are 
truly in need.  Those people, the ones who play honestly and by the 
rules, will get screwed and fall into no-man's land.   In the past, 
those with 'drive' were the ones who won the housing/land lottos, making 
do with less amenities to settle the outlands.  Now, those with zero 
drive will win the housing/land lotto, and complain that the government 
won't provide them with services like libraries, public safety, and 
water to make their lawns green.  

The irony of this, to me, is the short sightedness of city planners or 
whoever came up with this scheme.  Most undeveloped municipal land is 
undeveloped or underdeveloped for a reason.  Ball fields and parks are 
commonly constructed on flood plains or even built upon old landfills.  
Placing houses on this ground is asking for trouble down the road.  If 
they line their coffers, they will soon be paying the money back to the 
new homeowners, who will bring suit to the city after things go bad.  



Gene GeRue wrote:
> Don't panic. It is not yet another insidious way for urban bureaucrats to 
> fleece we noble country folk. But for sure this is a definition I had never 
> considered.
>
> From:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/us/26revenue.html?_r=1&hp
>
> Beatrice was a starting point for the Homestead Act of 1862, the federal law 
> that handed land to pioneering farmers. Back then, the goal was to settle the 
> West. The goal of Beatrice’s “Homestead Act of 2010,” is, in part, to 
> replenish city coffers.