U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-29-2014, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,652,237 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

I don't think smoke detectors are intended to prevent fires, but to save lives. During the day, maybe you know what set the alarm off, and can address the fire. But, if the alarm goes off at night, it's best to just leave, and call the fire department from a neighbor's residence. If there was no smoke alarm, you might not wake up before being asphyxiated from the smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2014, 11:09 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,034,672 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
I think we all take housing seriously... nothing special about me.

I've been asked to comment on code proposals for the NFPA so I have a little experience on the subject.

Could just be the practical side of me... generations have grown up perfectly fine in homes built in the last century and just about every issue can be traced to a lack of maintenance or understanding of how things work plus stupidity.

Take for instance Smoke Detectors...

The standard came out requiring one and the it required one per floor plus one in each bedroom...

Now the standard requires hardwired detectors here... why??? because it was found the people living in the dwellings didn't care enough to replace batteries or worse yet deactivated them... whose fault it that?

Back on point about Gentrification...

Gentrification takes older, depressed areas and rejuvenates through renovation and improvement... bringing structures up to current codes and modernizing... it would seem anyone concerned about substandard housing would be all for bettering the existing stock... it is quite the opposite in my community... kind of no matter what you do... you will never please everyone.

The fact is people willing sell out and others willing buy... there could be no homes to buy if sellers didn't want to sell...

Ah, but as a poor renter, affordability trumps all else, and I imagine that financially distressed people at risk of displacement think likewise. To those who would 'better' the housing stock available to me - i.e. make it less affordable to me - I say GTFO.

Oh, and the tax code is designed to churn ownership of rental property, so there's always supply available for purchase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 12:16 PM
 
15,733 posts, read 9,242,575 times
Reputation: 14212
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Ah, but as a poor renter, affordability trumps all else, and I imagine that financially distressed people at risk of displacement think likewise. To those who would 'better' the housing stock available to me - i.e. make it less affordable to me - I say GTFO.

Oh, and the tax code is designed to churn ownership of rental property, so there's always supply available for purchase.
As a homeowner, affordability trumps all else with me too (why on earth would it only be important to a renter?). To those who wish to negatively affect my property value - i.e. increase density or sell to those that can barely make rent - I say, well, you know.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,202 posts, read 1,577,785 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
In that case it's not fair. But gentrification doesn't stop, it's a natural process.
Its not fair in any case. Not just this specific example as it pertains to Senior Citizens. This is a TRUE case of Gentrification, or the removal of a specific demographic and increase in COL. Examples like this are happening in inner cities everywhere, and its not cool no matter where its at. I see it where I own properties in NYC, ATL and my hometown of NOLA,. Its disgustin man...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Formerly NYC by week; ATL by weekend...now Rio bi annually and ATL bi annually
1,202 posts, read 1,577,785 times
Reputation: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard_ View Post
I recently saw this news story in Seattle and it made me really sad: Longtime residents on Seattle's First Hill forced out

Watch the video and tell me how it's fair that this can happen so developers can make money - what can be done to protect against this?
To answer your question let me give you an intimate example: In downtown Atlanta, the neighborhoods are broken up into what they call NPU's. I own a couple properties in a specific NPU by the Braves stadium. The one I stay in when I travel from NYC to ATL has a neighborhood improvement association due to it being a historic neighborhoo founded in 1883 by freed blacks. One of the missions of the community improvement association is to of course, improve the community thru revitalization and to curb the displacement of individuals due to the Gentrification. There of course ia a blight and vacancy issue in certain inner city neighborhoods. But this specific Association has not only purchased almost 100 blighted and vacant properties to rehab for rent and sale, but they have partnered with a large NFP who has also invested in over 50 homes to rehab. By doing so, the Association has limited the stock of homes that can be purchased by investors or Gentrifiers, and increased the stock for sale to low income families via Community Land Trusts. The goal of this is to lead to a truly mixed income area. The private investors can and will, of course, sell to whomever they please. While the homes offered by the Association will sell these properties as Community Land Trust properties to middle and low income families whom qualify. I think its a great blueprint. As a resident of pretty much three cities that have stages of Gentrification going on in them, I can attest to the philosophy that more "Income" gentrification is needed rather than "Demographic" gentrification, which is what is all too often happening. Everyone should be in the business of building up neighborhoods and promoting inclusion, not displacing people and promoting exclusion.

This is a vantage point of my personal experiences living currently in Manhattan and Atlanta with a family home also in the city of New Orleans, 7th ward. I somehow found myself entangled in this web of community activism now and find it truly engaging. I could talk about this stuff all day. But if you wanna know more, just ask.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 07:35 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I don't think smoke detectors are intended to prevent fires, but to save lives. During the day, maybe you know what set the alarm off, and can address the fire. But, if the alarm goes off at night, it's best to just leave, and call the fire department from a neighbor's residence. If there was no smoke alarm, you might not wake up before being asphyxiated from the smoke.
Exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Chicago - Logan Square
3,396 posts, read 6,178,700 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I read an interesting essay awhile back from a fire chief who concluded that smoke detectors basically didn't work. He looked at the number of fires over the period of time where smoke detectors were put in place (IIRC, the 1970s) and found no decrease overall. The drop in the number of fires seems only to have been caused by earlier changes to fire codes, which unfortunately I cannot remember right now. Regardless, he concluded they are largely useless devices for preventing major fires.
I think you may be talking about this article. He wasn't saying they didn't work, just that their success rate was lower than usually claimed. He was claiming that smoke alarms only reduced the death rate by about 30%, instead of more than 50% - not that they didn't save lives. His main point was actually to argue for the use of photovoltaic alarms instead of the more common ionization alarms.

Also, the main motivation for requiring them to be hard wired is that so many people fail to replace the battery, or remove the battery due to false alarms. Having working fire detectors not only saves lives, it saves a lot of money in property damage and municipal expenses by alerting people inside the house to a smaller fire, instead of having to wait for someone outside the house to see it.

Last edited by Attrill; 09-29-2014 at 08:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2014, 10:47 PM
 
26,585 posts, read 52,247,863 times
Reputation: 20392
Displacement is not a big issue in cities like mine with rent control...

As a property manager it is a sad state when I care more about the safety of my tenants family than they do in regards to smoke detectors.

It is the exception to find a home where none of the smoke detectors have been tampered with and something I will never understand.

I have a separate form that is signed at move in and annually the all smoke detectors have been tested and demonstrated to be working before I leave...

Usually the battery will be missing, sometimes the entire smoke detector will be gone and I've even seen them smashed in place...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 05:21 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,034,672 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
As a homeowner, affordability trumps all else with me too (why on earth would it only be important to a renter?). To those who wish to negatively affect my property value - i.e. increase density or sell to those that can barely make rent - I say, well, you know.....

You got your affordability - 30 years worth and more - when you got your fixed-rate mortgage (lenders are very good at making sure your loan is affordable, what with ratios and all ). Even in the worst-case scenario - which obviously won't happen - you'll almost always come out ahead in the long run for having owned rather than rented. (Median homeowner net worth is, what, approx 50 times median renter net worth?)

Renters have affordability - if at all - for only the length of their lease, which rarely exceeds 12 months. (And most renters today do not have affordability, according to the government, what with rents having necessarily skyrocketed over the past five years.)

What homeowners are really saying is, we have a loaf, and we want it to grow into two (or more) loaves, and in order to ensure that happens, renters will just have to settle for having no loaf at all, even if that means they pay more than we in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2014, 06:41 AM
 
15,733 posts, read 9,242,575 times
Reputation: 14212
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
You got your affordability - 30 years worth and more - when you got your fixed-rate mortgage (lenders are very good at making sure your loan is affordable, what with ratios and all ). Even in the worst-case scenario - which obviously won't happen - you'll almost always come out ahead in the long run for having owned rather than rented. (Median homeowner net worth is, what, approx 50 times median renter net worth?)

Renters have affordability - if at all - for only the length of their lease, which rarely exceeds 12 months. (And most renters today do not have affordability, according to the government, what with rents having necessarily skyrocketed over the past five years.)

What homeowners are really saying is, we have a loaf, and we want it to grow into two (or more) loaves, and in order to ensure that happens, renters will just have to settle for having no loaf at all, even if that means they pay more than we in the end.
Your jealousy is quite pathological at times.

There is NOTHING that discriminates against renters. There is no law, ordinance or rule that says only certain people can own a home. It comes down to simple choices. You own a home or you don't.

You seem to think that renting is more expensive than home ownership. My mom rents by choice. She owned a home for years and finally sold it, after 30 years, for a profit of $5,000 (the neighborhood went downhill and she finally sold after a break-in while she was home).

Renting for her is a LOT less expensive. She has no maintenance costs, taxes or insurance. Her rental is in a better neighborhood to boot.

I will repeat - you BELIEVE that you could afford to own a home if it was small enough. The reality is that you have NO idea how much it costs to own a home. I can guarantee it is a lot more than the pittance you pay for a room in a private home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top