Were you getting a discount because you were plundering booty or having your booty plundered? Was the microwave integral to the discount or can one get the discount without sexual favors involving microwaves.

"Stahp braking in we ain't got nuthin"

Talked to them one day, obviously they do estate sales. But they mention they travel up to 13 hours for stuff, crazy radius. So while I'm sure they do local, they go all over the region.

OPs asking for specific places, so I think a link is perfectly appropriate.

Saying that because I'm interested too!

Lol, love how you use quotes as if facts are opinions.

There's been no factual evidence that sheriff's or any police have burned homeless camps or their belongings.

What we do have so far is hearsay, and second hand information.

I'm all for getting pitchforks out if this is proven to be true. But we don't have that yet.

Technically it's always been illegal if the landowners have asked them to leave. Simply trespassing.

That being said efforts have ramped up, but I thought it was only focused on enforcement of homeless sleeping/living on public property which doesn't fly anymore.

On one hand, I feel for those displaced and just trying to find somewhere to sleep for the night. On the other if it's my building, property, etc. I don't want people trashing it, making my property into a shanty town. I'm sure this statement will be unpopular, but I truly don't know of anyone offering their backyards up to homeless to camp on. It's easy to say those with a bunch of land shouldn't feel disturbed if homeless camp on one acre. But equally if you feel that way, you shouldn't be annoyed if homeless come and camp in your backyard.

We have systems in place, shelters, food pantries, etc. in place precisely for these people. The problem most of the time is the shelters have strict rules and curfews which don't go well with their lives. Likewise what is really needed is more mental health support.

The applicant would need to specifically ask for that condition. P&Z couldn't do it without the owner asking. City Council could, but very unlikely and unpopular intervention.

That being said you're right that condos would kill the project, but that's not because of the lack of infinite rent. Developers build condos all the time, build for $x sell for $x*150%. The demographic that would buy condos at the cost they would be build for, is non-existent in that location. I'd be pressed to find a specific location in Springfield that could support a condo development. People in Springfield, based on market studies, don't really want condos.

Yeah! Screw the developer for making it not flood downstream! And screw dogs!

/S to be safe.

Say it loud for the people in the back!

We must build higher density housing to solve the housing crisis, and frankly bring down prices.

Why are apartments and rentals so costly? Because the demand is high and the supply is low. Saturate the market with supply and the demand falls out, cheaper housing.

Typically if a school is overwhelmed they just redraw district lines. Most schools aren't at full capacity.

Not a perfect analogy. Sometimes eminent domain is necessary. Such as ... say a highway or an interstate.

Today it only takes 4 hours to get down to little rock, or 1 hour to get down to Branson. I'm old enough that I remember a time that wasn't the case. I've to old timers and it was a several hours journey to get to Branson or table rock lake, and Little Rock took 8+ hours.

If you didn't have eminent domain, one landowner could completely stall a highway.

In this articles case, they want to improve the bridge and make the area more usable. They can't because of this building.

I'm confident they will, just expect it to take longer. Same thing happened with Jordan Valley, this is more or less a continuation of that.

It'll happen, it'll be great, but it'll take 20 years.

I feel like you reiterated my point, are you disagreeing?

Increased supply (more units built to rent), decreases demand (less people wanting to rent) by increasing competition (more units on the market vying for the same set number of renters), means decreased rent.

I suppose my point of leaving a unit empty or decreasing rent was somewhat reductionist, but still what will happen.

Ultimately the only point, that isn't up for debate is that... More units built = cheaper rent.

Supply and demand, if you build more apartments/homes (add supply) it will drive demand down, when that happens a unit will sit empty and a landlord will have to decide if they want to lose money on keeping it unoccupied or rent it cheap to have someone there.

Getting quality entry level, affordable housing, requires money being allocated from the city or state. No one is going to build a house or apartment that loses money for the good of society on their own dime.

Kind of like I wouldn't be willing to buy an extra house, and rent it for less than my loan for it, effectively losing money. A developer just won't develop any new property, entry level, workforce, luxury, etc if they aren't going to make money.

The problem is generally no where is zoned correctly for this type of high density use, and for sale.

Typically when you want to build something of scale (outside of an industrial building in an industrial park) you need a zoning change and/or variances.

Exactly what I said last night when I had a similar conversation. He bought some nicer cars, and Rolex, and a boat.

Like, doing federal fraud (blatantly) for $1mm? Not worth it, too much at stake and too big of losses. $5mm minimum, and you get that out of the US ASAP!

Everyone needs a lawyer, even shitty people. I don't always agree with Councilman McGull but he shouldn't be looked down upon for representing that asshole.

Very good one that is easily accessible. Have a day? Have a few hours? Just sign up and they'll find some sorting for you!

You rang?

Brad Q Sachshaw

The naysayers definitely didn't care about affordable housing or luxury housing.

Nimbyism is tough, if I lived next to it, I don't know that I'd be different. But overall we all have to take a look and ask what's good for the whole community.

Last point, affordable housing in the low income sense is a thing that exists well in Springfield. What we need, like everyone else, is blue collar/workforce housing. The problem is, there's just not grants out there promoting that. You can get up to 10% back from the government for affordable low income property construction, or you could make up the same money by building luxury. There's just no money in building average to basic apartments.

So you take out the intersection at 60 and Campbell. Now you can't get on or off the highway?

If you go underground you still have just as many connections you have to make to keep access, you've just inverted the problem, not fixed it.

Not to mention taking it all underground would be hundreds of millions. The existing bridge and existing infrastructure immediately around it alone is 50+ million worth.

All of that to say, every person in the city would need to pony up $1000-$2000 for that project.

Well the long term plan is that all of those roads get bigger. You essentially always need a grid of major roads spaced no matter how residential. Everything is a residential road or a farm road until business comes with density.

Then to add to that you can do all the infrastructure at once, you have to start somewhere, and extending Kansas is already 20 years overdue.

Not at all. You're complaining and wallowing in your own self pity.

Get the fuck out of here with your classist bullshit about how you somehow are better than McDonald's or Walmart workers, and how they need to keep their wages low so you can be superior.