Living “Off The Grid”

            While not everyone may be familiar with the term living “Off The Grid”, it essentially means living in a home or area that does not have access to the public grid, aka electricity and water. This is not a new concept, as the US passed a Homestead Act in 1862 where individuals could gain ownership to land after improving it and much of our country’s historical roots have been passed down through the frontier lifestyle [1]. While many American families have humble and rural roots, some of the trades and skills of past generations have been lost through the modernization of America and popularity of metropolitan areas. That being said, more recent generations have found a need to reinvigorate these traditions whether it be to establish more healthy food sources, escape government tyranny, or leave behind overly stressful lifestyles.  

People choosing to live off the grid must provide their own sources of food, water and electricity. Some of the most publicized benefits have been the idea of not paying utility or mortgage bills or separating oneself from government control/restrictions without the use of currency or public goods. As you can imagine, providing these recourses in remote areas can be a full-time job in itself through hunting, fishing, tending agricultural fields, and home building. Home steaders as many still call them must be a jack of all trades. Interestingly enough, this culture has caught on with mainstream Americans as countless magazines, articles, and tv shows have articulated this type of subsistence lifestyle.

Some of the most familiar manifestations of this have been seen through the Tiny or Small House Movement. These consist mainly of homes less than 2,000 sq ft that can take up very little space and can be built at low cost by the resident [2]. These types of homes also endorse the use of salvageable materials like windows, doors, or wood that can be obtained for little to no cost [2]. These small homes are even sometimes built on flat bed trailers where they can be transported to different places or be relocated into tight spaces like friends backyards. These homes usually use renewable energy like solar panels and have the ability to reuse existing water. Essentially, a person can live with almost non-existent monthly costs out of one of these homes and not be required connection to the grid.

TV shows like Yukon Men, Alaska: The Last Frontier, or Mountain Men also depict the subsistence lifestyle. Alaska: The Last Frontier depicts the Kilcher family, who originally fled Europe during WWII and started a 600 acre homestead in Alaska more than 80 years ago [3]. 3 generations of the Kilcher family now live on this homestead near the town of Homer, Alaska [3]. As the Kilcher brothers manage the livestock, hunt moose and deer, and maintain the cornucopia of log cabins, the remainder of women and children harvest and preserve vegetables for the winter and other homestead tasks. That being said, during much of the show the Kilchers appear to be having a good time during family barbeques or goofing off around the property. They seem to have found their own slice of heaven.  

While this type of lifestyle may be to dramatic of a transition for many, renewable energy and recourses, access to organic foods, and time spent in the great outdoors is becoming more valued by Americans. While it is in our roots, many seem to be yearning back to those traditions as their 8-5 day jobs sitting in a cubicle or the several hour-long commutes have become increasingly mundane. These more rural lifestyles have gained popularity as the negatives aspects of metropolitan areas like traffic, density, and pollution have reared it’s ugly head. Whether this trend phases out or gains more moment who really knows, but it is obvious that many feeling trapped and are looking for a different life’s path closer to nature.

Work Cited

[1] “The Homestead Act of 1862.” National Archives. October 1997. 1 December 2013. Web. <www.archives.gov>

[2] “What is the Tiny House Movement.” The Tiny Life. 2 December 2013. Web. <www.tinylife.com>

[3] “Alaska: The Last Frontier.” The Discovery Channel. 2 December 2013. Web. <dsc.discovery.com>

California on Gun Violence

            Historically, the State of California has been one of the strictest states on gun control. Has this meant a decrease in gun-related crimes? Not exactly. While the state has banned assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, and particular types of ammunition, the rate of gun-related murders has remained in the top 5 amongst other states with 3.4 murders per 100,000 people with approximately 2,000 killed by gunfire each year.

            So why aren’t California gun laws making a difference? The answer is laws banning particular guns or gun components do not remove firearms from gangs, criminals,and the black market. While law-abiding citizens may register or turn in newly banned weapons or participate in gun buy back programs, those who disregard the law are easily able to store and hide guns in their homes or backyards for decades. Many gun-related crimes are committed with firearms 20+ years old.

Why doesn’t California make laws that affect criminals? The answer is obvious; these types of laws are more expensive, difficult to manage, and do not sound as pretty on paper as gun bans. Policies that could address criminals would include more comprehensive background checks, gun registrations, gun licensing, and/or searches and seizures.

Instead of considering policies like these, the California legislator has chosen a mindset that gun bans magically remove guns hidden in someone’s closet or buried in their yard with some type of magical fairy dust. The harsh reality is little to nothing will be able to pull the thousands of illegally possessed firearms currently in circulation. Additionally, sending law enforcement to conduct home inspections, which has been suggested in some municipalities, would be unconstitutional, expensive, and most likely increase criminal activity in other neglected areas.

California and others can establish more detailed background checks, and require a training course where gun owners can learn safety precautions and procedures to using a firearm. In this type of system, gun-owners would have flawless records, and be ready to safely use and practice with the firearms, as well as steps in order to securely store them from unauthorized users. Gun-ownership licenses would inform government agencies if a licensed gun-owner has committed a felony or any other offense, and that his or her firearm should be confiscated. It would create a more cut and dry enforcement effort.

California needs to address gun ownership at the source and as something that will not see results till far down the road. That is the ugly truth. Legislators need to restrict WHO can purchase firearms opposed to what they can purchase. There should be a priority here; restricting gun ownership once the firearms are out in the public has been and always will be completely ineffective.

Accountability of the American Homebuyer from the US Housing Bubble

     As many already know, the US Housing Bubble was spearheaded by millions of homebuyers defaulting on sub-prime mortgages and extreme bank leveraging. This created an artificial rise in housing prices and then a bust moving into 2006-2012.  Documentaries, books, and research pieces have been put together regarding the reaction, mainly blaming the greed of Wall Street and mortgage companies like Countrywide. The “explanation” has certainly become a repetitive process. That being said, one subject of conversation that is almost never discussed is the fault of the American homebuyer.

     In most debates about the housing crisis, the American homebuyer who lost there home is seen as the victim. While some were conned into signing false mortgages and faced unknown payment increases, the vast majority could have prevented loosing there homes and credits altogether. Even if the real estate market had not faltered, many individuals signed risky reverse mortgages or delayed payments, assuming 20+% increases in home values per year [1]. That being said, homebuyers in many cases should have know that purchasing $600,000 to over $1 million homes with 5 figure household incomes was an  unrealistic proposition, no matter what salesmanship they faced [1]. At some point the principal had to be paid off.

     One reason homebuyers were so enticed was that the single-family home has always stood as the quintessential example of the American dream. This incentive was strong enough to push homebuyers basic logic aside. However, this priority of homeownership has been around for centuries in the US. Unlike the more dense multi-family housing structures of Europe, Americans strived to be better. Historically, the vast majority of presidents, politicians, and bureaucrats alike have strongly supported homeownership with measures like the Homestead Act, the Housing Act, and Fair Housing Act [1]. The US has always believed that homes gave people a social and financial stability with more involved citizens, safer neighborhoods, and healthier children.

     For these reasons, the federal government has a long history of making home mortgages easier to attain. One of the first was the mortgage interest deduction that individuals could apply to federal income taxes [2]. Soon after, the creation of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) in 1938 provided local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages, creating the 30-year fixed rate mortgage and leading to more housing loans [3]. After World War II, the GI Bill helped veterans make lower down payments with low interests [3]. It was during this time that suburban residential developments began to cover the US and homeownership rates rose to over 60 percent [4]. The US had become a country of homeowners and the Federal government was there to back up that ideal.   

            From that period, the 30 year fixed rate loan with 20% down became the gold standard for home mortgages.  Homebuyers would schedule immediate interest payments, and show several proofs of income. Unfortunately, beginning in the 2000’s there was a move by the Federal government to address homeownership among low-income families and minorities. The solution was to hand out loans with low interest, little to no money down, and limited proof of income. While there may have been a good premise behind the Fannie and Freddie loans, it had harmed those that it tried to help. Many of these low-income families signed off on mortgages that they could afford hypothetically for the first several years, but would have almost no chance of repaying the principal over a longer period.

When these homebuyers defaulted and housing values plummeted, trends in homeownership were substantially altered. Younger adults are now renting much longer than the generations before them because they are choosing to save assets and/or seek investments that are perceived as safer than purchasing a home [4]. Those who are fortunate enough to purchase homes are opting for more modest ones with lower payments [4]. Additionally, many real estate brokers and economists have noted that new homes have become smaller and lack the pricey extras such as patios or pools [4]. Homeowners are also remaining in those first homes for longer periods of time;  11% of those surveyed owned their home for 3 years or less, down from 30% in 2006 [5]. The idea of being able to purchase a home to build wealth and its use as a conservative long-term investment has dwindled.

            The US Housing Bubble has left a scar in homebuyers, and the types of financial incentives they should accept. Owning a home is a massive responsibility and not everyone is cut out for it. There are simply some individuals that do have the financial responsibility or means to own a home. Unfortunately, in more recent decades the federal government went to far in pushing the homeownership agenda and millions of people acquired homes that they would never be able to pay off. While the goal for increasing homeownership seems ethical, homebuyers should not have the privilege to transfer their debt onto the construction industry and middle class. The single-family home can and will represent an individual’s greatest investment, source of wealth, and vessel for life as long as the US does not compromise sound lending principles. Sustainable loan commitments and a healthy economic environment are the only sources to real increases in homeownership rates and quality of life for a lasting period of time.

Work Cited

[1] “The Fuel That Fed the Subprime Meltdown.” Investopedia. 26 February 2009. 9 April 2013. Web. <investopedia.com>

[2] “Inside Job” Directed by: Charles Ferguson. Film. 8 October 2010.

[3] “The Case Against Home Ownership.” Kiviat, Barbera. Time Magazine. 11 September 2010. 10 April 2010. 

[4] “Homeownership Harder to Attain Since Recession.” Pittman, Kristen. The Wichita Eagle. Kansas.com. 6 September 2011. 13 April 2013. Web. <Kansas.com>

[5] “Shifting Confidence in Homeownership: The Great Recession.” Bracha, Anat, and Jamison, Julian. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. 13 April 2013. Paper.

    

Apple Campus 2: The Compound of Corporate Compounds

            On October 16, 2013, demolition and construction of the new headquarters “Apple Campus 2” for tech giant Apple Inc. were fully approved by the Cupertino City Council. The new “campus” will be 1 mile east of the current headquarters in Cupertino and will coexist on a conglomerate of 9 separately purchased properties. Apple plans to build a unified circular office building 1 mile in circumference and 2.82 million sq ft. To put this in perspective, on the ground the building will take up more land than the Pentagon.

            To make way for the colossal structure, Apple has demolished the preexisting office buildings totaling 2.6 million sq ft that were formerly owned by HP and Summerhill Homes. Many of the demolished research and development buildings would be considered Class A office space, but within months Apple scrapped them for what will truly be a master planned headquarters built from a clean slate. The construction of the compound is estimated to take 3-4 years and cost up to $5 billion, which is almost unheard of in the construction industry for a private company.

            The massive circular headquarters will encompass the center of the property and will include offices, research and development, a 1,00 seat corporate auditorium, cafeteria, and a corporate fitness center. Parking structures and ancillary buildings including security, landscaping, and maintenance will be located on the exterior bounds of the property. The primary consideration in the layout was security, as Apple has had heightened concerns with keeping new products and software’s classified from the public and competitors until they are released.

            That being said, the Apple Campus 2 has been built and designed in the most difficult, drawn out, and expensive way possible. The central headquarters building dominating the property will need curved glass and materials which will rack up massive construction costs as well as curved and bents lines seen in very few other buildings. The size and scope of the building would also make it impossible for Apple to ever sell the property, as it is to large and undividable for smaller private firms, making this a risk endeavor. Furthermore, 6,200 trees will be planted and native grasses will be used within the courtyard and exterior grounds of the building to create dramatic views amongst the open space. All of these factors making expenses almost triple what they should be and no exit plan if Apple were to default on the project.

            However, upon its completion, the grandeur of Apple headquarters will be difficult to surpass for some time. Perhaps its greatest attribute is it’s mixing of contemporary and bold architecture amongst hundreds of acres of manufactured forestry and brush. In the end, Apple will actually be increasing the ratio of greenery, which will cover approximately 80% of the land. While the new headquarters might be seen as a symbol of Apple’s dominance, it is arguably revolutionary towards real estate development in general. Upon its completion, much of the property on the outskirts will be accessible to the public, employees will have large common areas to interact, and the architecture and layout of the compound will represent an attraction for the city. At the end of the day, Apple Campus 2 will most likely represent a development that will give more than it takes.

TSA Contraband Inspections

                Several weeks ago I wrote about the Department of Public Safety at the University of Southern California in regards to their inefficient use of time barking orders at students and faculty, TSA seems to be cut from the same cloth. However, while The Hapless Blogger wasn’t able to get past the use of “Gestapo,” perhaps the use of another agency with a less offensive title will be more sensitive towards his tastes.

             One of the first memories that comes to mind when I think of the TSA was when I was going through LAX security at the age of 12. I removed my jacket and shoes, and placed my bag into the dark box-like cave on the conveyor belt. As I passed through the metal detector, my jacket had caught one TSA agent's attention, and he was on it like a bad rash. As I walked over to oversee his concern, he began to jiggle his hand down each pocket. Eventually to my surprise, he pulled out my beloved Swiss Army pocketknife. He examined the device, and informed me it would have to be confiscated. As he dropped it into a large blue bucket, I walked away devastated.

            Today, non-locking pocket knives with 1-3” blades are allowed to be taken on airplanes. However, I do not see knifes or bludgeoning devices as huge risks to air plane travel. Overall their search and confiscation is a waste of time towards addressing safety. If you look back to why many of the hijackers succeeded on 9/11, it was because they were able to break into the cockpit. Since 9/11, cockpit doors have been substantially fortified and are locked throughout the flight. Unfortunately, the US government felt that more had to be done to ease American concerns, and that seizing threatening devices and conducting full body searches would really ramp up the safety of American flights.

            Unfortunately, TSA agents are not addressing the problem. If someone wants to cut or stab someone, they will most likely be able to smuggle the device through TSA which has been proven with multiple failed tests or makeshift other devices like broken off steel luggage handles or electronics to do the same. That being said, knifes or spear-like devices will most likely not open current cockpit doors or damage the aircraft. In that sense, a person with a sharp object would have to partake in hand-to-hand combat with 300 passengers to kill everyone on board, unlikely to say the least.

            The TSA needs to clarify its purpose. If it exists to prevent plane high jacking or massive losses of life, it should solely focus on incendiary devices.  The detonation of an explosive device is the only threat to breaking the cockpit doors or compromising the integrity of the airplane. That being said, random body searches or questioning has proven ineffective in catching the "terrorist" which will be one out of a million. A TSA focusing on bomb detection can narrow down never ending list of prohibited items of what agents are looking for and leave room for bomb-detection devices and practices in their budgets.

           

As Tuition Rises, Student Housing Conditions Decline

In the last 25 years, college tuition has increased dramatically, and an expense that previously could be inherited by the students has now become lifelong debt reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. While upper-level education is arguably improving and attracting just as many top professionals, student housing has undoubtedly fallen by the waste side.

 As more equity than ever is flowing in an around College campuses, college town landlords have held on as a monopoly of increasing property values. At the same time, landlords are able to scrape away increasingly lucrative margins amongst a steady and increasing supply of college students without making improvements to their property or efficiency of business.

Year after year, while college students flood into the areas surrounding their prospective campuses, landlords hold the inelastic cards of raising rents and reducing operating costs without consequences. While surrounding college town properties are usually not owned by one entity, usually 2-3, this demand shift and market failure is without a doubt monopolies in action.   

Despite the massive housing bubble in 2008, college enrollment has increased sharply leading to shortages of housing and the evolution of these impenetrable college town sub-markets (2). At the same time, massive student loans and the financing hurdles that go into paying colleges has become a scapegoat for the lowering standards and media attention.

Unfortunately, the shortage of student housing in and around college campuses leads to an exponentially less competitive market than in most cities and towns. Housing is so desperately sought after by college students that landlords are able to get away with knocking down the overall living conditions and standards of their buildings leaving mold invested drywall and dysfunctional appliances for future tenants (3).

Additionally, owners not responding to maintenance calls, using cheaper materials or shortcuts for repairs, accepting unsafe electrical wiring methods, lending excessive liability to tenants in leases for common areas or utilities, and removing unexplained chargers from security deposits have become the norm (1)(2). Cutting corners and deceiving students has become the unenforced status quo of management.

More commonly, this has lead landlords to disregard the most basic government multi-family housing laws altogether. College town land lords in some cases may not return security deposits within 3 weeks, do not provide consistent heating, leave hazardous materials untreated, or ignore local rent controls laws, all which of which are blatantly illegal (1).

Furthermore, larger national student-housing companies like American Campus Communities or Peak Campus Companies have standardized higher rental rates with grossly unfavorable lease terms for students (2). This in turn forces students to either pay the higher than market rate premiums for the corporate housing suppliers or accept the illegal management practices and living conditions which is a mainstay with nearby slum lords.

Unfortunately, students usually do not have the voice or leverage to negotiate these rents and living conditions. College towns can truly be a “fixed market” in this sense. That being said, colleges that provide more student-housing or resources for students to negotiate reasonable terms, could put local landlords on their toes.

Additionally, students simply asking basic questions about lease terms or suspicious building characteristics of apartments or reading online reviews could avoid future nightmares (3). College town land lords will only provide more affordable rates and address their code violations with the civic engagement of students and colleges alike.

At the end of the day, students accepting slum-like to even hazardous living conditions while paying higher rates is unacceptable, especially considering the increasing financial burden of college tuition. College students in the US should be treated fairly, and deserve reasonably priced clean and safe housing.

Work Cited

1. “Real Estate Law (Multi-family).” California Bureau of Real Estate. January 15 2013. Print. 

2. “Landlords, How to Make a Buck in College Towns.” MSN Real Estate. Web. <realestate.msn.com>

3. “Exposing College Slumlords in Your Area.” Poynter. 4 March 2011. Web. <www.poynter.com>

           USC Department of Public Safety “Gestapo”

            If you find yourself on or around the USC campus you might wonder why the numerous segways, patrol suvs, and armed personnel are there. Well, they are referred to as DPS at the University of Southern California. They are not in any way affiliated with government law enforcement, but are there to protect students, staff, and structures from the crime and vandalism rampantly manifested in the surrounding neighborhoods. That being said, the student-officer interaction is not always friendly to the say the least.

            Near Tommy Trojan, in the center of campus, DPS officers are commonly seen yelling at bikers in pedestrian zones, erecting barricades, or posting restrictive signs. Many are seen in three wheeled tank-like segways zooming through walkways or gunning it around surface streets with their heavily equipped ford explorers as if trouble is always afoot. Most officers will be seen with side arms, the almost identical brown and black uniforms worn by LAPD or LA County Sheriffs, and a healthy slice of attitude. They are the constant “police presence” that are not actual police.

            Many including myself question their excessive numbers or raunchy behavior. Unfortunately, many DPS officers tend to embody a sense of entitlement common to that of a minority of law enforcement officers across the US. Yes, the guy with a beer belly that asks why he pulled you over. And yes, I have seen numerous DPS officers that are well over 300 pounds, questioning if they are really there to confront criminals. Many students I have come across complain that while DPS stringently enforces their restrictions, requests to investigate lost bikes, burglaries, or domestic disturbances can be answered with “your on your own.” I have been met with that response over the phone more than once. One DPS officer even had the audacity to ask me to keep moving on a city-owned sidewalk.

Unfortunately, as long as the big guns, shiny badges, $6,000 segways, and siren equipped suvs are handed out in droves, the DPS “Gestapo” is unlikely to part ways with it’s antics. While this behavior towards criminals may be acceptable, continually alienating USC students without ill will to do actual harm makes no sense. The DPS should exist to prevent actual crimes and investigate criminal behavior, policing cyclists or enforcing superficial restrictions is a waste of University funds and does not contribute to increased public safety.