Question:
5. Rammed earth: Mostly of use in the Southwest. Advantage: When faced with stucco, can be a durable and strong building material. Dirt is cheaper than most other building materials. Tends to be cooler during the day than other housing types in the Southwest, due to the large thermal mass that evens out the temperature swings between hot desert day and cold desert night. Disadvantages: While immune to insect damage itself, it has obvious potential to funnel insects up into the rest of the house, meaning that insect-resistant materials must be used everywhere. Not going to be good news in damp climates — rammed mud just don’t cut it from a structural point of view. Now you are lighting the aroma-therapy candles. This one of Bin Laden’s favorite structures.
Not quite. Out here in the West, adobe is very popular amongst buyers of very expensive ($500,000+) custom homes. It has that "Western" look. Let’s face it, people don’t move into the middle of the desert to live in a custom house that looks like it could have been built in Ohio. The problem is that adobe bricks are very heavy and labor-intensive to lay (same basic problem as concrete block, but concrete block is lighter and thus goes up a little quicker than adobe). They are also expensive, because they are basically still hand-made — if you go out to the "factory", what you’ll see is row upon row of forms laying out in the sun, and they toss the appropriate amounts of soil (a special sifted soil w/appropriate sand/clay mix) and binder (usually soil cement) into the cement mixer, add water, then pour the resulting mud onto these forms. Just like laying concrete. Then after the bricks cure for several days in the sun, they’re pulled out by hand and shipped by truck to where they need to be. At that point they’re laid just like regular bricks, except in much thicker walls (a minimum of 12" is required by New Mexico code, and Arizona code basically requires following someone else’s code for adobe — and New Mexico is basically "it"). The problem is the labor to pull them out of the forms, and the shipping. These things are HEAVY (over 20 pounds per 6" by 12" by 2" brick), and fragile — you can’t just sling them onto the truck, they must be placed. So basically what "rammed earth" is, out here, is you take the ingredients used for adobe, and to reduce the labor you pour the result into forms on site in the shape of the wall you’re trying to build, rather than into bricks that must then be pulled out of forms and placed. Much less labor. (Note that we DO use binder here, it’s not bin Laden style plain old mud walls). The "rammed" part of the "rammed earth" refers to the "thumper" used to tamp down the layers (I believe you use these when you’re pouring concrete foundations too, to tamp down the mix, but the adobe mix is stiffer than concrete mix and needs more tamping). Unfortunately, you end up rather restricted by the shape of the forms. With adobe you can lay those arched windows and such that are staples of Western architecture. "rammed earth" is rather, uhm, square, by comparison. Anyhow, you finish it on the outside with stucco (just as with adobe), and finish the inside any way that you wish, and voila. As for your comments about concrete block construction: Almost every 40 year old house I’ve ever seen built with concrete block construction has gaps in the walls that you can put your fist into (where they haven’t outright collapsed). That is where my comments came from about concrete block walls needing better foundations than stud walls. My grandmother’s old house was built in 1964 (almost 40 years ago) on concrete blocks (no proper foundations) by novice carpenters (basically, the neighbors and a few relatives), and while it settled and shifted over the years, the walls and roof are still sound. This is perfect proof that a stud-frame house can be built with cheap labor and still be structurally sound years later, if the people doing the building actually care about what they’re doing. Concrete block houses need much more care in their construction to be structurally sound 40 years later. You can’t hire Mexicans off the street corner to sling up concrete block walls. You need craftsmen, people who can lay a line. It’s a lot easier nailing OSB to studs than laying a line (I’ve done both in the past, once you get the studs square everything else just falls into place, but I never got the hang of laying a line, my garden planters looked, uhm, sick). Around here, those guys who can do concrete block are all union, and they cost a bundle, primarily because they mostly do commercial construction and charge commercial construction prices. Regarding insulation, concrete block has a very low "R" rating. Sure, if you put insulating board on the inside and outside you can get that up a bit. Of course, you’re talking about more expense there than a stud wall, for the same insulating value and little more strength (well, a lot more COMPRESSIVE strength, but no more lateral strength). But it IS impervious to insects looking for munchies. As is the foam block & concrete house, but that has more insulating value and less labor cost (since you can change the line after it’s been laid but before pouring the concrete). The problem is lack of builders familiar with the foam & concrete systems — there are (expensive) builders who can build concrete block here in Arizona, and at least one high end builder who can do adobe and/or rammed earth, but I haven’t seen anybody who does foam & concrete. And finally: Yes, we do license builders here in Arizona. However, the licensing board has little ability to do background checks on those who apply for licenses, and is chronically short on inspectors. What happens is that fly-by-night builders incorporate under a dozen or more names, and get contractor’s licenses for all of those dummy corporations (any cursory background check will find no complaints for any of the principals of those corporations, because none of them have done anything bad yet). Then they engage in "build’n’scoot" tactics, slinging up a subdivision with the cheapest materials possible. Then when the rush of faulty construction claims start coming in it’ll take the licensing board some time to get inspectors out to verify the faulty construction. When the licensing board finally yanks their license and fines them, they declare bankruptcy and start operating under yet another one of the names that they registered. There’s one outfit recently profiled in the newspaper that has had their license pulled under four different names in the past ten years, and that has managed to avoid paying claims every time by declaring bankruptcy after delaying the case in court for a few years and then going into business under another name. Most local cities have instituted an Eastern-style building code, where an inspector must sign off at each stage that the new building is up to code. But in the vast majority of Arizona there is no building inspector. All the fly-by-night has to do is set up camp one inch on the other side of the city line and he can build anything he feels like building, knowing that the day of reckoning is years off (if he plays his cards right in court) and will be painless (if he incorporated and licensed enough dummy corporations beforehand). So now you know why we Arizonans are down on builders at the moment 
. So if I blast you from time to time, don’t take it personal — I’m mostly blasting the scumbag "build’n’scoot" scam artist down the road who filled the area with instant ghettos every bit as bad as the stereotypical "trailer park" of yore. — Eric Lee Green GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg You do not save freedom by destroying freedom
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … I’m still trying to decide on building materials and methods. I really have not been satisfied by anything I’ve seen so far. [...] BTW, here’s where we’re at so far: 1. Foam block/rebar/concrete: [...] 2. Concrete block: [...] 3. Stud/plywood: [...] 4. Post-and-infill: [...] 4a. Commercial style post-and-infill: [...] 5. Rammed earth: Mostly of use in the Southwest. [...] 6. Straw bale: Mostly of use in the Southwest. [...] Anyhow, that’s the stage I’m at while devising my "dream home". Alas, most of those building methods are not allowed in residential neighborhoods here in Phoenix. Dude, one word: adobe.
You’re right, I left that one out. Although it’s sort of covered under #5, "rammed earth". (Same construction material after all :-p ). — Eric Lee Green GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg You do not save freedom by destroying freedom
Response:
So how do you like your trailer, Eric? [smirk] Hey guys, here’s a fun thing to do at a convention of home builders: Shout "Manufactured housing!" at the top of your lungs, and watch the chaos break out as home builders start wringing their hands and tearing their hair out and squawking "trailer house! trailer house!" as they mill about looking for the heretic who uttered the Evil Term in their presence.
Eric, you could not be more incorrect. Manufactured homes, formerly called "trailers" are not a threat to the vast majority of builders. They do provide affordable houses that depreciates rapidly, but I guess that is better than living in an apartment. If you want to see builders "wringing their hands," just bring up some piece of proposed government regulation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Where government does have a more active role in zoning they are simply trying to maintain land values and therefore tax values. Would you want to live in a town of trailers and double-wide manufactured cracker boxes? Maybe you would. Hmm, when was the last time you was in one of these things? Admittedly I would not want to live in one if I had the money to build my "dream home", but compared to the sagging crumbling 20-year-old stick homes down the street (the ones where the slabs are collapsing because they were not properly reinforced and because they were mixed with too much water because the lazy-ass subcontracters didn’t feel like spreading stiff concrete, and where the walls are rotting out because the windows were not properly flashed, etc. etc. etc.), which is the only other houses they could have afforded, my relatives’ double-wides are the lap of luxury and better built besides.
Actually I toured a factory about two years ago. I was not impressed. The same guys who were doing the plumbing were also running the wiring. Overall the skill level of these fellows was at best semi-skilled. The test of a manufactured home is a high-wind storm, such as a hurricane or tornado. Have you ever seen what a hurricane can do to a manufactured home? The reason is that most of them are not required to meet the same wind-load requirements as a site-built home. A few facts: Slabs do not collapse because the concrete had too much water in the mix. Such slabs are more prone to cracking and weathers, but this is only rarely a structural consideration. On most manufactured home they don’t bother to use house wrap under the aluminum siding and they don’t flash the windows or doors as you might expect in conventional construction. I guess that your relatives do love their double-wide’s. Good for them. About twelve years ago my mother-in-law retired and sold her site-built home so that she could buy something smaller. She was really pissed at me at the time and did not build the home that I had designed for her. Instead she bought a big double-wide in a park that catered to retirees. She paid $65K for the mobile home. Last year she sold it for $15K. The that I was going to build for her and did sell to another couple sold for $114K more that they paid for it when they sold it last year. My guess is that even you can do the math and figure out which home was the best investment. While the old girl owned her double-wide palace, she had nothing but problems with it. The plumbing leaked, the roof leaked, she hated the tiny toilets, and electrical system had a lot of problems too. Not to mention the fact that it just looked cheap. I’ve toured one of the factories building the things. The materials used are virtually identical to those used in the cheaper stick houses, with the exception that they use faced drywall rather than spackled drywall to avoid cracking during the inevitable flexing that happens during the moving process. The roofing system is slightly different too, since it is basically a half-truss rather than a full truss, and of course the flooring system is catilevered steel beams rather than multiple parallel wooden beams, but none of those are particularly significant.
"Virtually identical" – hardly. The are significant in as much as what you described is a trailer. They are cheaply built and they possess the architectural value of a box of crackers. What builders hate about them is that they destroy property values and they ruin the tax base. In many states trailers are taxed as automobiles. Trailer folks get away with filling the local schools with their kids and paying very low taxes. And when government does apply these restriction, they are the result of input from the local community. That, Eric, is called a zoning hearing. You probably went to one to get a variance for your new double-wide. "input from local community" smirk. When did you last see ordinary citizens have input on some issue of substance? Yeah, occasionally ordinary citizens can stop the occasional liquor store or titty bar. Big deal, those guys don’t have the money to buy (or even rent) zoning commissioners. Here in Phoenix the zoning commissioners are all developers or in the employ of developers, and they do what the developers tell them to do (with the exception of the token university professor on the zoning board, who they shout down every time he tries to say something).
I have seen it happen so many times that I have lost count of the events. Any change of zoning or application for any development must undergo public review. I have been to these hearing and it is one of the only places where the average citizen can speak directly to his government officials. Remember, these are elected officials, they do respond to public input and public campaign contributions. Have you ever been to a zoning hearing where someone wants to build a trailer park? I have seen the most reserved, politically correct folks screaming that they don’t want to live near a bunch of "trailer trash." I remember one black gentleman telling the commission that he didn’t want to have to pay the taxes to build schools for a trailer park full of "white trash." And no one wants to see his or her property values collapse. Zoning laws are one of those things that arose out of the theory of "urban planning", which is the socialistic theory that government, rather than property owners, are the best judge of the proper use of a piece of property. This concept was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 and since then has been responsible for the destruction of innumerable city neighborhoods by preventing the free market from fulfilling the needs of the neighborhood. When people cannot obtain the goods and services they want and need within a reasonable proximity of their neighborhood because "urban planning" has prevented the free market from satisfying those needs, these people then move elsewhere. Then people who cannot afford to live anywhere else move in, and the neighborhood swiftly declines.
I have little experience with inner city zoning issues. I wrote off the inner city many years ago. Government does have the right, under law, to control the use of property, though recent Supreme Court decisions have greatly weakened these powers – Thank God! Sill, local government is very receptive to public opinion, especially if you can organize a large group of folks who are likely to vote in the next election. These are elected officials and the want to be elected again. About a month ago I was talking to the mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory at a charity event. Pat, who had once been a strong supporter of the new arena had changed his position after the vote on the arena went against his position in a landslide vote. He had the intelligence to realize that he was up for re-election and that he did not want to alienate a large percentage of the voters in this issues. You will find that most residents are not happy to see manufactured home developments spring up in their back yard. Yes Eric, government, Correction: "Manufactured home ghettos". One of the things we discovered as part of the "public housing" movement of the 1960’s was that if you cluster low-income housing all in one place, what you get is a mess — an instant ghetto. Nobody wants a low-income housing development built in their back yard. By forcing manufactured housing into these ghettos, you insure that they’ll be attractive only to low income people. Which, of course, is the point — to avoid competition.
Eric, people will not tolerate manufactured homes in site-built communities. As I stated before, they de story property values and they tend to bring in low-income, low-education, high-crime neighbors. Low-income housing is like public housing – the folks who live there often are not good citizens and they do not support the community. The only people who buy manufactured housing are those who cannot afford to buy anything else. No one with enough money to buy a real home would be caught dead in a mobile home. The folks who can afford to buy a Lexus are not going to be looking for a Yugo. Manufactured housing is not forced into "ghettos" any more than customers who build $500K+ homes are forced into ghettos with large yards, gold clubs, and lake access. You could develop a mobile home community and charge $10,000,000 per home. But that would not attract the wealthy to buy a mobile home. Actually, Eric, we are just finishing a test home that sold for the same price per ft2 as the local modular home builder sells them for. Did you make as much profit?
It was a small home so the margin was pretty low. We only made about $35K on it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Generally though, my market is in very large custom homes. I’m still waiting to see one of my 7,600 ft2 three story brick homes with a full basement being moved down I-85. I saw an 16,000 square foot school move down Camelback Drive here in Phoenix, does that count? (It was moved in sections of course, which were
… read more »
Response:
O What is utterly hilarious is that he goes into all these screeds about how government should not be restricting use of private property, when, as a builder of stick-built homes, he is one of the primary beneficiaries of such restrictions. After all, if cities did not have zoning codes outlawing manufactured housing on residential lots, then Peter would go out of business because he cannot build a stick-built house for the price of manufactured housing — he doesn’t have the volume, he has significant setup and breakdown costs, he can’t build in the rain (unlike an enclosed factory, where rain outside does not matter), his fixed overhead is idle during the "off" season, etc. So how do you like your trailer, Eric?
[smirk] Hey guys, here’s a fun thing to do at a convention of home builders: Shout "Manufactured housing!" at the top of your lungs, and watch the chaos break out as home builders start wringing their hands and tearing their hair out and squawking "trailer house! trailer house!" as they mill about looking for the heretic who uttered the Evil Term in their presence. Where government does have a more active role in zoning they are simply trying to maintain land values and therefore tax values. Would you want to live in a town of trailers and double-wide manufactured cracker boxes? Maybe you would.
Hmm, when was the last time you was in one of these things? Admittedly I would not want to live in one if I had the money to build my "dream home", but compared to the sagging crumbling 20-year-old stick homes down the street (the ones where the slabs are collapsing because they were not properly reinforced and because they were mixed with too much water because the lazy-ass subcontracters didn’t feel like spreading stiff concrete, and where the walls are rotting out because the windows were not properly flashed, etc. etc. etc.), which is the only other houses they could have afforded, my relatives’ double-wides are the lap of luxury and better built besides. I’ve toured one of the factories building the things. The materials used are virtually identical to those used in the cheaper stick houses, with the exception that they use faced drywall rather than spackled drywall to avoid cracking during the inevitable flexing that happens during the moving process. The roofing system is slightly different too, since it is basically a half-truss rather than a full truss, and of course the flooring system is catilevered steel beams rather than multiple parallel wooden beams, but none of those are particularly significant. And when government does apply these restriction, they are the result of input from the local community. That, Eric, is called a zoning hearing. You probably went to one to get a variance for your new double-wide.
"input from local community" smirk. When did you last see ordinary citizens have input on some issue of substance? Yeah, occasionally ordinary citizens can stop the occasional liquor store or titty bar. Big deal, those guys don’t have the money to buy (or even rent) zoning commissioners. Here in Phoenix the zoning commissioners are all developers or in the employ of developers, and they do what the developers tell them to do (with the exception of the token university professor on the zoning board, who they shout down every time he tries to say something). Zoning laws are one of those things that arose out of the theory of "urban planning", which is the socialistic theory that government, rather than property owners, are the best judge of the proper use of a piece of property. This concept was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926 and since then has been responsible for the destruction of innumerable city neighborhoods by preventing the free market from fulfilling the needs of the neighborhood. When people cannot obtain the goods and services they want and need within a reasonable proximity of their neighborhood because "urban planning" has prevented the free market from satisfying those needs, these people then move elsewhere. Then people who cannot afford to live anywhere else move in, and the neighborhood swiftly declines. You will find that most residents are not happy to see manufactured home developments spring up in their back yard. Yes Eric, government,
Correction: "Manufactured home ghettos". One of the things we discovered as part of the "public housing" movement of the 1960’s was that if you cluster low-income housing all in one place, what you get is a mess — an instant ghetto. Nobody wants a low-income housing development built in their back yard. By forcing manufactured housing into these ghettos, you insure that they’ll be attractive only to low income people. Which, of course, is the point — to avoid competition. Actually, Eric, we are just finishing a test home that sold for the same price per ft2 as the local modular home builder sells them for.
Did you make as much profit? Generally though, my market is in very large custom homes. I’m still waiting to see one of my 7,600 ft2 three story brick homes with a full basement being moved down I-85.
I saw an 16,000 square foot school move down Camelback Drive here in Phoenix, does that count? (It was moved in sections of course, which were then lifted by crane onto pre-prepared slabs at the final resting place… from breaking ground to school opening was a grand total of 6 weeks). In any event, Peter, you know that wasn’t my point at all. I was talking about the low end of the housing market, where developers buy up a 1000 acre cow pasture and, a few weeks later, are breaking ground to build a ticky-tacky mass produced housing development with slabs that are guaranteed to crack within 5 years (too much water because it takes too much time to move properly-mixed concrete, no pre-stressing of the reinforcement, no rebar), inadequate or missing flashing ("Hmm, if we just glop some roofing tar around the edge of the chimney that’ll last the 5 years of our warranty and we’ll have ‘gone out of business’ and re-incorporated under another name by that time so they won’t be able to sue us either"), etc. etc. etc. Then when the walls are rotting down 5 years from now (and OSB rots *SWIFTLY* when it gets wet — Peter, why are even the expensive "custom built" homes using OSB instead of plywood nowdays?), the people who bought their "dream homes" will sigh, pick up stakes, and move a few miles further out into the next cow pasture where they hope the next home will be better. Somehow it never is. Somehow Peter loves criticizing government interventions that impede his ability to pave the countryside, but utters not a peep about government interventions that place money in his pocket. Interesting. Let’s see, word, starts with ‘h’, 3 syllables… Government does not make me any money. It is the free market that fuels my business.
Well, I’ll find out. I’m still trying to decide on building materials and methods. I really have not been satisfied by anything I’ve seen so far. If zoning codes allow me to build the home I want to build on my property, well, great. If, instead, zoning codes only allow me to build the home YOU want to build on my property… well. BTW, here’s where we’re at so far: 1. Foam block/rebar/concrete: Advantage: Goes up quick. Very good insulation. very strong. immune to insect damage. Disadvantage: while immune to insect damage, also provides corridors for insects to enter into other parts of home. Home builders don’t know how to do it. 1a. Foam panel/rebar/concrete, similar systems: See above. 2. Concrete block: Advantage: well-known building system. Immune to insect damage. Disadvantage: Foundation preparation is crucial (it is NOT tolerant of the slightest defect or settling in the foundation). Little insulating value. Hard to finish. Labor-intensive, requires actual craftsmen rather than itenerate day laborers. Cannot use in earthquake-prone areas. 3. Stud/plywood: Advantage: If using plywood, very strong while lightweight. Easy to find cheap labor that can build it. Thus is least expensive construction method (except perhaps straw bale, see below for that). Disadvantage: if using 2×4 studs, not much insulation can be stuffed in there. Prone to rotting when used with finishing materials that do not allow adequate ventilation (e.g., fake stucco). Very succeptible to insect damage. 2×6 offers moderate amount of space for additional insulation, at expense of increase in cost that wipes out most of its cost advantage. More complex stud/plywood systems utilizing double-wall systems to increase amount of insulation space probably not worth persuing. 4. Post-and-infill: Typically used with a pole-type foundation system consisting of pressure-treated poles driven into the ground. The flooring and roofing systems are then slung from the poles, then curtain walls built around the perimeter and interior. Advantage: works well on steep slopes, where it can be used to build a multi-level home without extensive bulldozer work. Disadvantage: The pressure treated poles don’t last forever (supposedly they last for 50 years, but nobody really knows), meaning that eventually they will need to be replaced (a very expensive and iffy prospect). The floor tends to be a bit bouncy unless you’re very careful with the floor system. The floor ends up quite a ways from the ground, since you have large cross-members connecting the poles and the flooring system lives atop those cross members, plus you want to keep the cross members well above the ground to keep the termites out. 4a. Commercial style post-and-infill: Uses steel beams bolted to a foundation. Roof and floors are slung from beams similar to above, with curtain walls built around the edges and in the interior.
… read more »
Response:
I will follow your advice and killfile you. None the less, why don’t you go play this game with people who *want* to play, not those who actually might want to follow discussions that pertain to rec.backcountry? You have gone away, ain’t killfiling wonderful? Soon you will only be talking to yourself, but that’s probably OK with you, I would surmise. Mark
It is so nice that you are gone.
Response:
It’s been my observation that many who call themselves "conservatives" and preach a free market economy are often feeding off the tit of the government, they just don’t want to or can’t see nor admit that they are. I’m sure Peter doesn’t accept nor admit that he is *subsidized" by the rest of us via the mortgage tax deduction and subsidies to the timber and other industries that allow him to "compete" for home buyers. Or that gov’t regulation actually promotes his business via zoning and other mechanisms.
The government takes over 50% of what I earn. That is hardly feeding off any "tit." The buyer of the home is the one that receives a tax break. For those of you who are used to living off the sweat and talent of others, there is a big difference between getting a welfare check in the mail and getting to keep more of the money that YOU earn through a tax break. Mark, you rank right up there with Eric for not knowing how this country works. If the government tariffs on the importation of Canadian and other lumber were dropped the cost of lumber in America would drop by at lest 20%. [Of course we pass the extra cost on to everyone who buys one of my homes, as do all builders]. As a consumer, do you have any idea how much government regulation, taxes, and general government interference cost you when you buy a new home? It is you, the uninformed consumer that pays the price, not the builder. We just pass on the cost to you. When government mandates 1.6 gallon flush toilets without letting the industry have time to develop the technology you are the jerk who gets a home with toilets that don’t flush. [Buy Toto, they flush great]. When government demands that fire-treated plywood be used in multi-family projects, you are the sucker that has a mortgage on a condo that is falling apart before you very eyes. You just don’t get it. And that is why you are a liberal. Beside, he ought to go play this silly straw man game with those who *really" wnat to play, not in a backcountry group. He may see himself as the town crier when in fact he’s more of the court jester.
Engage your kill filter, Mark.
Response:
If you were any real sport you’d go over to alt.politics or alt.politics.bush or, or god forbid, alt.poltics.clinton and post this. Those places are full of trolls, you would fit in perfectly. Unless of course, you’re serious. In that case I would think you get your intellectual ass handed to you fairly quickly. Mark
Mark, if you had the brains that God gave a goldfish, you would put me in your kill filter and be done with me. By the way, comrade, did you send the same message to the liberals in this forum?
Response:
Puff Daschle Now, THAT lends credence to your arguments… Just can’t let go of the lessons learned at Mr. Limbaugh’s knee, can you? Herr Peter clones Limbaughs’s ideas, values, even jokes. He worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North.
Chaka, you should not mention Limbaugh’s name while kissing Clintoon’s rear end. You know how that pisses-off Monica.
Response:
O What is utterly hilarious is that he goes into all these screeds about how government should not be restricting use of private property, when, as a builder of stick-built homes, he is one of the primary beneficiaries of such restrictions. After all, if cities did not have zoning codes outlawing manufactured housing on residential lots, then Peter would go out of business because he cannot build a stick-built house for the price of manufactured housing — he doesn’t have the volume, he has significant setup and breakdown costs, he can’t build in the rain (unlike an enclosed factory, where rain outside does not matter), his fixed overhead is idle during the "off" season, etc.
So how do you like your trailer, Eric? Actually, the vast majority of restrictions against "manufactured homes" were put in place by developers rather than local governments. Where government does have a more active role in zoning they are simply trying to maintain land values and therefore tax values. Would you want to live in a town of trailers and double-wide manufactured cracker boxes? Maybe you would. And when government does apply these restriction, they are the result of input from the local community. That, Eric, is called a zoning hearing. You probably went to one to get a variance for your new double-wide. You will find that most residents are not happy to see manufactured home developments spring up in their back yard. Yes Eric, government, especially local government, does receive input from the electorate. The market does not perceive manufactured homes to have the same value as site built homes. In most states they do not have to meet the same building codes as site built homes either. Actually, Eric, we are just finishing a test home that sold for the same price per ft2 as the local modular home builder sells them for. Actually, when you adjust the price to account for some of the truly shoddy components, this home would have sold for less than a modular home. Generally though, my market is in very large custom homes. I’m still waiting to see one of my 7,600 ft2 three story brick homes with a full basement being moved down I-85. Then there’s the home mortgage deduction, which subsidizes Peter by making it cheaper to buy his house as compared to other possibilities (leasing, buying a duplex with another family, etc.), and there’s the other zoning laws that prohibit mixed commercial-residential buildings like those that you’ll find in the inner portions of older cities (housing that could compete with Peter’s ticky-tacky slapped-together look-alike houses), and … all of which are government interventions have the direct effect of subsidizing Peter.
Once again Eric, you are wrong. You are so good a being wrong. Whomever owns the property can claim a tax deduction. The property can be a primary or secondary residence. It can be a mansion on the ocean, a trailer in Arkansas, or a boat. Eric, you can claim a tax deduction on a duplex that you are buying with another family too. You can claim a tax deduction if you own rental property too. That is usually called "depreciation." For those of you living in manufactured housing, deprecation is what you home does from the day you buy it. Eric, the average cost of one of my homes is about $375K and they way up from there. They are mostly one of a kind designs and pretty large. Would you like to buy one? Somehow Peter loves criticizing government interventions that impede his ability to pave the countryside, but utters not a peep about government interventions that place money in his pocket. Interesting. Let’s see, word, starts with ‘h’, 3 syllables…
Government does not make me any money. It is the free market that fuels my business. There are plenty of places in NC that allow mobile homes and manufactured home and they are certainly not a threat to my business. Nor are they a threat to the builders who compete in that price range. The only manufactured homes that are reasonably well constructed cannot compete in the site-built market. The government has spent [wasted] millions of dollars trying to develop affordable housing alternatives. My favorite was a high-rise mobile home park. I still have a picture of it around here somewhere. So Eric, how do you like your trailer?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, THAT lends credence to your arguments… Just can’t let go of the lessons learned at Mr. Limbaugh’s knee, can you? Herr Peter clones Limbaughs’s ideas, values, even jokes. He worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North. What is utterly hilarious is that he goes into all these screeds about how government should not be restricting use of private property, when, as a builder of stick-built homes, he is one of the primary beneficiaries of such restrictions. After all, if cities did not have zoning codes outlawing manufactured housing on residential lots, then Peter would go out of business because he cannot build a stick-built house for the price of manufactured housing — he doesn’t have the volume, he has significant setup and breakdown costs, he can’t build in the rain (unlike an enclosed factory, where rain outside does not matter), his fixed overhead is idle during the "off" season, etc. Then there’s the home mortgage deduction, which subsidizes Peter by making it cheaper to buy his house as compared to other possibilities (leasing, buying a duplex with another family, etc.), and there’s the other zoning laws that prohibit mixed commercial-residential buildings like those that you’ll find in the inner portions of older cities (housing that could compete with Peter’s ticky-tacky slapped-together look-alike houses), and … all of which are government interventions have the direct effect of subsidizing Peter. Somehow Peter loves criticizing government interventions that impede his ability to pave the countryside, but utters not a peep about government interventions that place money in his pocket. Interesting. Let’s see, word, starts with ‘h’, 3 syllables…
It’s been my observation that many who call themselves "conservatives" and preach a free market economy are often feeding off the tit of the government, they just don’t want to or can’t see nor admit that they are. I’m sure Peter doesn’t accept nor admit that he is *subsidized" by the rest of us via the mortgage tax deduction and subsidies to the timber and other industries that allow him to "compete" for home buyers. Or that gov’t regulation actually promotes his business via zoning and other mechanisms. Beside, he ought to go play this silly straw man game with those who *really" wnat to play, not in a backcountry group. He may see himself as the town crier when in fact he’s more of the court jester. Mark — mark "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher regard those who think alike rather than those who think differently." –Nietzsche
Response:
If you were any real sport you’d go over to alt.politics or alt.politics.bush or, or god forbid, alt.poltics.clinton and post this. Those places are full of trolls, you would fit in perfectly. Unless of course, you’re serious. In that case I would think you get your intellectual ass handed to you fairly quickly. If you had a brain in your head you would put me in your kill filter. By the way, it was a play on how the left tries to make an emergency out of everything. Now go away.
I will follow your advice and killfile you. None the less, why don’t you go play this game with people who *want* to play, not those who actually might want to follow discussions that pertain to rec.backcountry? You have gone away, ain’t killfiling wonderful? Soon you will only be talking to yourself, but that’s probably OK with you, I would surmise. Mark — mark Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite. — J.K. Galbraith
Response:
Puff Daschle Now, THAT lends credence to your arguments… Just can’t let go of the lessons learned at Mr. Limbaugh’s knee, can you?
Herr Peter clones Limbaughs’s ideas, values, even jokes. He worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North.
Response:
Now, THAT lends credence to your arguments… Just can’t let go of the lessons learned at Mr. Limbaugh’s knee, can you? Herr Peter clones Limbaughs’s ideas, values, even jokes. He worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North.
What is utterly hilarious is that he goes into all these screeds about how government should not be restricting use of private property, when, as a builder of stick-built homes, he is one of the primary beneficiaries of such restrictions. After all, if cities did not have zoning codes outlawing manufactured housing on residential lots, then Peter would go out of business because he cannot build a stick-built house for the price of manufactured housing — he doesn’t have the volume, he has significant setup and breakdown costs, he can’t build in the rain (unlike an enclosed factory, where rain outside does not matter), his fixed overhead is idle during the "off" season, etc. Then there’s the home mortgage deduction, which subsidizes Peter by making it cheaper to buy his house as compared to other possibilities (leasing, buying a duplex with another family, etc.), and there’s the other zoning laws that prohibit mixed commercial-residential buildings like those that you’ll find in the inner portions of older cities (housing that could compete with Peter’s ticky-tacky slapped-together look-alike houses), and … all of which are government interventions have the direct effect of subsidizing Peter. Somehow Peter loves criticizing government interventions that impede his ability to pave the countryside, but utters not a peep about government interventions that place money in his pocket. Interesting. Let’s see, word, starts with ‘h’, 3 syllables… Eric Lee Green GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg You do not save freedom by destroying freedom
Response:
If you were any real sport you’d go over to alt.politics or alt.politics.bush or, or god forbid, alt.poltics.clinton and post this. Those places are full of trolls, you would fit in perfectly. Unless of course, you’re serious. In that case I would think you get your intellectual ass handed to you fairly quickly.
If you had a brain in your head you would put me in your kill filter. By the way, it was a play on how the left tries to make an emergency out of everything. Now go away.
Response:
Puff Daschle
Now, THAT lends credence to your arguments… Just can’t let go of the lessons learned at Mr. Limbaugh’s knee, can you? Dan
Response:
<snip irrelevant material </snip irrelevant material If you were any real sport you’d go over to alt.politics or alt.politics.bush or, or god forbid, alt.poltics.clinton and post this. Those places are full of trolls, you would fit in perfectly. Unless of course, you’re serious. In that case I would think you get your intellectual ass handed to you fairly quickly. Mark — mark ~~~~~~~ "It is not true that all conservatives are stupid. It is, however, true that most stupid people are conservative." — H. L. Mencken
Response:
Puff Daschle, supposedly the champion of the environment, is allowing his office to be filled with chlorine dioxide just in case there are any anthrax spores floating around. Daschle, the man who does want America to drill in the ANWR has no problem exterminating every form of life in his office. What if some endangered insects are living in his office? They will all be dead. There could be some rare type of mouse or rat hiding in the attic of his office. The chlorine dioxide would surely kill them too. Further, Puff Daschle, has no concern for the impact on the environment if this highly toxic, deadly chemical should escape from Senator Daschle’s office. If, as he says, we can’t drill in ANWR without a leak, how can we fill his office with this deadly chemical without having a leak? I call for all environmentalists, especially Muskie, to be willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the environment by staging a sit-in at Puff’s office. Possibly by breathing deeply, Muskie and the members of the Sierra Club can filter some of this toxic chemical from the environment. By filling his office with chlorine dioxide, Senator Daschle is creating an environmental disaster as well as providing a precedent for the use of this horrendous chemical by other people who fear anthrax spores [Anthrax is a naturally occurring life form and should not be the target for extermination by the democrats]. The implications of this obscene abuse of the environment by Senator Daschle could bring about the total and complete destruction of the ozone layer as well as poisoning the water that our children drink. It could be the end of life as we know it on this planet and it’s all the fault of Tom "Puff" Daschle.
Response:
Hang in there, Jenny… it will be over soon. Is there any way you can get a cable modem installed quickly enough to deal with your web business, or is that not available there? Or not worth it, or…? If I could loan you our DSL, I would… (HUGS) — Nancy Howells (don’t forget to switch it, and replace the 
Categories: modular home | 
No Comments »