More EV fires after salt water flooding

[alpg88]

Again, apartment+ charging= huge inconvenience at best, or impossibility in most cases, let people decide what they want , can afford, and what is practical, not gvmnt. yea, not everyone in buildings have cars but many do, just drive by an area with buildings, you'll see plenty of cars. parking spots rent out for 300-500 a month and there are no shortage of customers, all spots are filled

Oh and about rebate, who is giving it? feds, state? so it means they will raise taxes, and gas prices and other people will be paying for you.

what if one day Adams says, you do not need an entire house all for just you and your mother, we could fit a family of migrants with you, or better yet we'll take your house using emanate domain laws, give you a room in a dorm, and put 10 migrants in it. do you see where i'm going with it?

 

[jtr1962]

Again, apartment+ charging= huge inconvenience at best, or impossibility in most cases, let people decide what they want , can afford, and what is practical, not gvmnt.

But where are they forcing this on people? The only thing I see even close to a mandate is a phase out date for selling new ICE vehicles. Even that is way in the future. There aren't currently any proposed bans on using ICE vehicles, although I suspect NYC will eventually move in that direction once all the practical problems have been solved. That includes a lot more public chargers for those living in apartments. If/when people can't drive ICEs in NYC, it'll only be because we've made EVs as practical. Not before.

Oh and about rebate, who is giving it? feds, state? so it means they will raise taxes, and gas prices and other people will be paying for you.

Or maybe long-term the rebate pays for itself. Medicare and medicaid spend a ton of money treating air pollution caused diseases. I don't have much trouble believing over the course of an electric vehicle's life we'll save far more than the $7,500 federal rebate in medical costs. Besides that, the rebates will probably be phased out soon as EVs hit price parity with ICEs.

You're conveniently overlooking the huge subsidies given to the petroleum industries, including the $8 trillion plus spent since 9/11 on wars to secure Middle Eastern oil supplies. Do the math. That's equal to giving a $7,500 rebate for over 1 billion EVs. It's so much more than the pittance government spent to promote EVs that it's not even funny.

what if one day Adams says, you do not need an entire house all for just you and your mother, we could fit a family of migrants with you, or better yet we'll take your house using emanate domain laws, give you a room in a dorm, and put 10 migrants in it. do you see where i'm going with it?

Problem is he'll quickly run out of taxpayers with a policy like that. Already people are voting with their feet to leave the city. Besides, there are lots of empty luxury condos in this city bought by investors. He could stick the migrants there. It's partially thanks to these people who hoard apartments/homes that real estate has skyrocketed. I won't shed a tear. I doubt many others will, either. Many of these rich Manhattanites are ultra liberal. Let them take in the migrants they so dearly wanted to come here. They certainly have the room in their huge penthouses.

Besides, I don't think eminent domain has ever been used that way. It's primarily for building projects in the public interest like roads, railways, dams, aqueducts, etc.

 

[bykfixer]

I wonder how much mrfixit paid for electricity.....

Like some here, I try to keep my consumption low with energy efficient appliances, using hand tools or battery operated as much as practicle and just generally trying to be a good steward of the 3rd rock from the sun.

 

[alpg88]

Problem is he'll quickly run out of taxpayers with a policy like that. Already people are voting with their feet to leave the city. Besides, there are lots of empty luxury condos in this city bought by investors. He could stick the migrants there. It's partially thanks to these people who hoard apartments/homes that real estate has skyrocketed. I won't shed a tear. I doubt many others will, either. Many of these rich Manhattanites are ultra liberal. Let them take in the migrants they so dearly wanted to come here. They certainly have the room in their huge penthouses.

Besides, I don't think eminent domain has ever been used that way. It's primarily for building projects in the public interest like roads, railways, dams, aqueducts, etc.

HE does not need tax payers, he has soros and china, hundreds of thousands already left nyc, he could not care less. and neither does Hochul, she openly said it, leave,
That is the fallacy that i see. best described here

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemölle

It actually has been used to take private properties and give it to private corporations,

• In 1999, Chrysler built a new manufacturing plant in Toledo, Ohio. The city borrowed a loan and granted Chrysler millions for the project, partially due to Chrysler's guarantee that it would employ nearly 5,000 employees. Because it was a fully automated plant, Chrysler only ended up hiring 2,100 people. In the process, Toledo declared neighborhoods of 83 well-maintained homes a slum in order to justify eminent domain and relocate the property owners, as well as 16 businesses.
• In the early 2000s, a real estate company in Hurst, Texas expanded its private mall to over 127 homes. The city used eminent domain to remove the homeowners, but a handful of them resisted the offers and filed lawsuits. The judge overruled their claims and forced them off of their land.
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut could seize private property for larger private development projects that would theoretically "create jobs and increase tax revenues." Susette Kelo and other property owners had sued New London for taking their land, but the court decision emphasized that the constitution made no mention of "literal public use" as a requirement for seizing private property. According to the court, the constitution allows for a much broader interpretation of "public purpose" (i.e. the promise of economic growth in a community).

 

[jtr1962]

Note that those are all for major projects. Housing migrants who aren't even here legally doesn't serve any compelling public or economic growth interest. Besides, why would they pick my neighborhood when there are plenty of parks they could build stuff on without the hassle of evicting people?

 

[alpg88]

Note that those are all for major projects. Housing migrants who aren't even here legally doesn't serve any compelling public or economic growth interest. Besides, why would they pick my neighborhood when there are plenty of parks they could build stuff on without the hassle of evicting people?

Does not matter, it would be justified as extraordinary crisis never seen before, city is on the verge of collapse, (he already asked residents who has spare rooms to take some in, when it gets worse he will do something that you'd never imagine, remember they make laws, their courts interpret those laws, their overseas donors finance them. the more crazy an idea sounds the more chances it will materialize, history has proven that again and again. if you do not care about injustice for segment of population you do not sympathize today, tomorrow you will be ok when it happens to those you can relate, all you need is a good explanation that marginalizes them, let me guess, you voted for adams and hochuil?

 

[jtr1962]

Does not matter, it would be justified as extraordinary crisis never seen before, city is on the verge of collapse, (he already asked residents who has spare rooms to take some in, when it gets worse he will do something that you'd never imagine, remember they make laws, their courts interpret those laws, their overseas donors finance them. the more crazy an idea sounds the more chances it will materialize, history has proven that again and again. if you do not care about injustice for segment of population you do not sympathize today, tomorrow you will be ok when it happens to those you can relate, all you need is a good explanation that marginalizes them, let me guess, you voted for adams and hochuil?

I thought Adams was one of the worst choices but no, I haven't voted in many years. I gave up after seeing the poor quality of the candidates. In NYC the GOP rarely puts forth any credible candidates because they assume defeat is a foregone conclusion. That makes it pretty much a one-party system. As an independent I can't vote in primaries, either.

Honestly, I almost think we couldn't do much worse putting my cat in charge. I actually feel for these migrants, the non-criminal ones anyway, but the simple fact is NYC lacks the resources to take in this many in this short a time period. We shouldn't guarantee shelter to non-citizens, nor should we use economic hardship as a criteria for those seeking sanctuary. Anyone with half a brain could have figured out these policies could lead to the disaster we see now.

I honestly have no good answers as far as what to do at this point. I'm half leaning to finding an empty parcel of land upstate which nobody owns, at least a few miles from any residences, fencing it off, putting tents or quonset huts up, then sending all the migrants there until we figure out what to do with them. Cruel? Sure, but the current situation is untenable.

 

[mrfixitman]

Panels, on an average house will give you about 6000-8000w, in best case, that is rated power, not considering inverter loses, average house service 2 phases 200amps, 48000w, average fridge needs 1500w, a hair dryer 1800w, tesla fast charger needs on average 20000W. an oven uses about 3000w, heat pump uses about 5000w.
You can not run your house on solar panels alone. not with what you have on the roof.

I can charge my Tesla or Leaf at 1,800 w which will take days or 6.6 or 7.2w on the Tesla. 4 hours from 50% state of charge. Nobody I know has a $30k supercharger. I also have induction cook tops that run on 1200 watts and an Oster French door oven that is 1,800 watts max. Efficiency.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

I honestly have no good answers as far as what to do at this point. I'm half leaning to finding an empty parcel of land upstate which nobody owns, at least a few miles from any residences, fencing it off, putting tents or quonset huts up, then sending all the migrants there until we figure out what to do with them. Cruel? Sure, but the current situation is untenable.

You kidding me?! You think this is the 1700's, and there is still unclaimed, un-owned frontier that you can just go homestead on and claim as your own?!

 

[jtr1962]

You kidding me?! You think this is the 1700's, and there is still unclaimed, un-owned frontier that you can just go homestead on and claim as your own?!

Maybe a better term would be land the government owns. Plenty of that in every state. Just in my city that includes plenty of parks of various sizes, land housing projects are built on, etc.

 

[bykfixer]

Maybe a better term would be land the government owns. Plenty of that in every state. Just in my city that includes plenty of parks of various sizes, land housing projects are built on, etc.

Let us know how that works out.

 

[alpg88]

Why would they build anything, when they can just take what is already available. especially when "extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary solution" Not to mention, gvmnt already owns the land your house is build on, try to skip on property taxes, see how quick they kick you out and sell your house to a highest bidder.

 

[jtr1962]

Why would they build anything, when they can just take what is already available. especially when "extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary solution" Not to mention, gvmnt already owns the land your house is build on, try to skip on property taxes, see how quick they kick you out and sell your house to a highest bidder.

Because it's more politically expedient to just put up tents or other low-cost shelter on vacant land. Don't think if they start taking people's homes to house migrants the people being forced out won't booby trap them. Government comes in, there's a big boom, end of story. After that happens a few times, nobody working for government is going to be going around evicting people. The people being forced out won't care if they have to go to jail as many would be homeless otherwise. At least they'll have a place to live.

Or the people being forced out will just make their home uninhabitable by destroying walls, plumbing, electrical, windows, etc. I'd definitely do that.

I'm not thrilled about building tent cities in parks either, given how little green space there is in NYC, but it's probably the best solution for now.

Besides, as I said, what's the higher public or economic purpose for sheltering migrants? There is none. First thing to do is remove the right-to-shelter clause from the state constitution. Make it apply only to citizens, if you must have it at all.

 

[alpg88]

I'm not thrilled about building tent cities in parks either, given how little green space there is in NYC, but it's probably the best solution for now.

BEst solution would be not to allow it in a first place, just like vast majority of NY counties.

 

[jtr1962]

BEst solution would be not to allow it in a first place, just like vast majority of NY counties.

We didn't tell people in other states to send busloads of migrants here. Maybe we should empty our jails and return the favor sending them busloads of our convicts.

Anyway, I hope this wakes up all the do-gooders who want to save the world by taking in every hard-luck case. Logistically, that just doesn't work. I love cats, but I can't take in every stray I see, as much as I might feel bad for them.

 

[IMA SOL MAN]

Because it's more politically expedient to just put up tents or other low-cost shelter on vacant land. Don't think if they start taking people's homes to house migrants the people being forced out won't booby trap them. Government comes in, there's a big boom, end of story. After that happens a few times, nobody working for government is going to be going around evicting people. The people being forced out won't care if they have to go to jail as many would be homeless otherwise. At least they'll have a place to live.

Or the people being forced out will just make their home uninhabitable by destroying walls, plumbing, electrical, windows, etc. I'd definitely do that.

I'm not thrilled about building tent cities in parks either, given how little green space there is in NYC, but it's probably the best solution for now.

Besides, as I said, what's the higher public or economic purpose for sheltering migrants? There is none. First thing to do is remove the right-to-shelter clause from the state constitution. Make it apply only to citizens, if you must have it at all.

NY has a right to shelter in its constitution?! Someone must have filled the statehouse with smoke from opium or pot! They must have been high on something! Bunch of stupid utopians.

 

[jtr1962]

NY has a right to shelter in its constitution?! Someone must have filled the statehouse with smoke from opium or pot! They must have been high on something! Bunch of stupid utopians.

Hey, I totally agree. When I read it, I knew from day one this was going to bite us in the behind sooner or later. That day has finally come.

 

[alpg88]

We didn't tell people in other states to send busloads of migrants here. Maybe we should empty our jails and return the favor sending them busloads of our convicts.

We kinda did, when we voted for people who approved open borders and allowed flood of refugees come in, we did not vote against them either, (case of, "the other side did not have good candidates")

 

[jtr1962]

We kinda did, when we voted for people who approved open borders and allowed flood of refugees come in, we did not vote against them either, (case of, "the other side did not have good candidates")

If the GOP ran non-MAGA old school fiscal conservatives who are also pro-choice, they would probably score a lot more wins in NY. With out of control government spending, being a fiscal conservative who demands accountability for every dollar would resonate with lots of people.

 

[alpg88]

If the GOP ran non-MAGA old school fiscal conservatives who are also pro-choice, they would probably score a lot more wins in NY. With out of control government spending, being a fiscal conservative who demands accountability for every dollar would resonate with lots of people.

YEa, it worked out great, right?
And please stop with this abortion bs, you really care about abortions that most likely will never be an issue in your life, and in lives of vast majority of people, over public safety, law and order, taxes, economy.,,,etc issues that affect everyone every single minute of your and their life????