On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:36:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:31:03 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com writes:
DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:15:52 PM UTC-4,
wrote:

One thing I've wondered about... Couldn't a reasonable place to stay
for a family be built in a 20' container? They're stackable, so you
could load a stack train up and unload in an empty parking lot.

Assuming the parking lot is right by the tracks and that the unloading
equipment can be set up/used on-site. If not, add a transportation
step to the set-up process.

Right, but 2-3 semis with a pair of containers each could probably have
10-20 containers set up in a day.

Have you ever been _in_ a container? 20' by 6' is what, about 120 square
feet? No Windows, door hardware only on the exterior. No plumbing,
No electricity.

Yeah, just sleep in the street.

Where, above, was that stated? You wouldn't be perceived as such a
jerk if you would stop with the strawmen.

It's emergency shelter, jackass. It's not supposed to have all the
comforts of home.


120ft^2 isn't enough shelter. It's
*insulting*.

I note that you don't have a problem with no plumbing or ventilation
in the deep south in late summer.

Plumbing can be taken care of in other units. Ventilation can be
done. You really are a jackass.

DerbyDad03 wrote:


Ventilation could be an issue. You need windows, fans, heaters, etc. Heck, FEMA
got screwed on trailers that were designed to be lived in. Imagine all the issues with
housing people in converted shipping containers. The lawyers are already salivating.

Besides, the gathering of the containers and beds, the cleaning, the welding,
the set-up etc. all take the "instant" part out of the equation.

PODS®

https://www.pods.com/container-sizes
http://us.exaude.com/wp-content/uplo.../02/pods-3.jpg
https://tours.360wichita.com/3868/sl...7/delivery.jpg

Nice pictures.

Is there a reason that you posted them?

The point being, humans are resilient. Some of us are old enough to
remember back when there was no FEMA. I had family members (cousins)
that lost everything but survived hurricane Camille back in '69, they
woulda' thought they "were ****tin' in high cotton" if the Govt had
delivered a 16ft POD as temp housing as opposed to being crammed in a
school several miles away.

"Ventilation could be an issue" - Roll the door upward.
"You need windows" - Roll the door upward.
"fans" - - Roll the door upward.
"heaters" - Roll the door downward.

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com

Right, but 2-3 semis with a pair of containers each could probably
have 10-20 containers set up in a day.

Have you ever been _in_ a container? 20' by 6' is what, about 120
square feet? No Windows, door hardware only on the exterior. No
plumbing, No electricity.


Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. Shoot,
you don't even need to make the exterior walls as tough and heavy as you
would for moving freight. (They still need to be tough and heavy, you'll
have very rough handling by guys who "know containers.")

I thought they'd be closer to 8', but 6' is still workable.

How many live in cars and vans?


How long do you recon?

Ah Reckon...


Ah yes, reckon.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
....

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

--

On 9/12/2017 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com

Right, but 2-3 semis with a pair of containers each could probably
have 10-20 containers set up in a day.

Have you ever been _in_ a container? 20' by 6' is what, about 120
square feet? No Windows, door hardware only on the exterior. No
plumbing, No electricity.


Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. Shoot,
you don't even need to make the exterior walls as tough and heavy as you
would for moving freight. (They still need to be tough and heavy, you'll
have very rough handling by guys who "know containers.")

I thought they'd be closer to 8', but 6' is still workable.

How many live in cars and vans?


How long do you recon?

Ah Reckon...


Ah yes, reckon.

Puckdropper


Actually there is/was a show on one of the HIY or H&G channels that
showed homes being built from shipping containers. I would entertain it.

On 9/12/2017 10:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is.Â* Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed.Â* ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

--


You mean these are no good?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3219606...=ps&dispItem=1

On 9/12/2017 12:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/12/2017 10:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is.Â* Look at it as it
could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed.Â* ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose
might as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did
that.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space
but they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

--


You mean these are no good?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3219606...=ps&dispItem=1

Interesting reads

https://www.curbed.com/2017/6/21/158...e-for-sale-buy

https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2...ontainer-home/

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:37:24 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/12/2017 10:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is.* Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed.* ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

--


You mean these are no good?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3219606...=ps&dispItem=1
a 40 footer would be even better for a family home

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

For permanent homes, no, I don't think anyone is proposing that
they're a good idea.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

For permanent homes, no, I don't think anyone is proposing that
they're a good idea.

Many architects seem enamored of them. Here's an interesting point (among
many) made by an architect pushing back against the fad:

An empty 40' shipping container weighs 8380 pounds. A galvanized steel
stud weighs a pound per linear foot. These two containers, melted down and
rolled and formed, could have been upcycled into 2,095 8' long steel
studs. Framing the walls instead of using shipping containers would have
used about 144 of them. Using shipping containers as structural elements
for a one storey building is downcycling and wasting of a resource.

Later on he says

Don't get me wrong; I love shipping container architecture that moves,
plugs in, that takes advantage of the tremendous infrastructure. I agree
with Mark that it is terrific for temporary or emergency uses. But does it
make good housing? I don't think so. Perhaps after all these years I am
still missing something.

Source https://www.treehugger.com/sustainab...verything.html

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are needed, where
would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma? The Keys? The
coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so, where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep them ready for use
when they may sit fior decades?



There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

For permanent homes, no, I don't think anyone is proposing that
they're a good idea.

On 9/13/2017 5:25 AM, William Ahern wrote:


There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

For permanent homes, no, I don't think anyone is proposing that
they're a good idea.

Many architects seem enamored of them. Here's an interesting point (among
many) made by an architect pushing back against the fad:

An empty 40' shipping container weighs 8380 pounds. A galvanized steel
stud weighs a pound per linear foot. These two containers, melted down and
rolled and formed, could have been upcycled into 2,095 8' long steel
studs. Framing the walls instead of using shipping containers would have
used about 144 of them. Using shipping containers as structural elements
for a one storey building is downcycling and wasting of a resource.

According to this guy the container can be better used making 2095
studs. What is the total impact once those studs are made into walls
with drywall, nails, energy for recycling, etc.? Doubt he did the right
research before commenting

On 9/13/2017 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are needed, where
would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma? The Keys? The
coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so, where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep them ready for use
when they may sit fior decades?




It can have benefits. They can be stored in much less space than a FEMA
trailer since containers stack well. You can transport 12,000 of them
on a single ship. Of course, then you need the supporting
infrastructure to handle the ship, the loading/unloading and the
tractors to move them to final location. Trains can move them too, but
you still need the right equipment on the rails.

It is not a single solution to all housing needs but I can see it as a
benefit is some areas. Just one piece of a well planed pie.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 03:41:56 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are needed, where
would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

There are one or two army bases in Florida, Georgia, and even Texas.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma? The Keys? The
coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and villages, etc.?

Is FEMA responsible for "Barbuda"? Can FEMA build trailers and have
them pre-placed around the Keys, Houston, small towns and villages,
*before* the hurricane hits? Good grief. THINK! Guess what
"intermodal" means.

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so, where? Everywhere?

Hell, no. Store them in Antarctica where they'll be out of sight!
sheesh

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep them ready for use
when they may sit fior decades?

That's why the steel shell makes sense. Drywall and termite barf that
FEMA used makes no sense at all.

It's not decades between emergencies, BTW.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

For permanent homes, no, I don't think anyone is proposing that
they're a good idea.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:30:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/13/2017 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are needed, where
would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma? The Keys? The
coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so, where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep them ready for use
when they may sit fior decades?




It can have benefits. They can be stored in much less space than a FEMA
trailer since containers stack well. You can transport 12,000 of them
on a single ship. Of course, then you need the supporting
infrastructure to handle the ship, the loading/unloading and the
tractors to move them to final location. Trains can move them too, but
you still need the right equipment on the rails.

It is not a single solution to all housing needs but I can see it as a
benefit is some areas. Just one piece of a well planed pie.

Exactly. Something that can be done _before_ it's needed.

They can stored in Guam, in such a way to either counterbalance the military masses, or just to balance their own weight so as to prevent the island from capsizing

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 1:17:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:30:29 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/13/2017 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

I think the idea is that these intermodal containers could be shipped
where they're needed using existing infrastructure and *stored* until
needed. The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are needed, where
would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma? The Keys? The
coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so, where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep them ready for use
when they may sit fior decades?




It can have benefits. They can be stored in much less space than a FEMA
trailer since containers stack well. You can transport 12,000 of them
on a single ship. Of course, then you need the supporting
infrastructure to handle the ship, the loading/unloading and the
tractors to move them to final location. Trains can move them too, but
you still need the right equipment on the rails.

It is not a single solution to all housing needs but I can see it as a
benefit is some areas. Just one piece of a well planed pie.

Exactly. Something that can be done _before_ it's needed.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

wrote:

They can stored in Guam, in such a way to either counterbalance the
military masses, or just to balance their own weight so as to prevent
the island from capsizing

LOL! https://www.youtube.com/embed/cesSRfXqS1Q?rel=0

https://www.youtube.com/embed/oAEqXubT21I?rel=0

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Downed trees are good for the local economy. All the bearded
backwoodsmen are swarming around in their pickups with a chainsaw and
a trailer. Let them make a little money off the storm, I say.

--
GW Ross

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:58:26 -0400, G Ross wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Downed trees are good for the local economy. All the bearded
backwoodsmen are swarming around in their pickups with a chainsaw and
a trailer. Let them make a little money off the storm, I say.

That paragraph shows great ignorance of economics.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

....and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.

On 9/14/2017 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:58:26 -0400, G Ross wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Downed trees are good for the local economy. All the bearded
backwoodsmen are swarming around in their pickups with a chainsaw and
a trailer. Let them make a little money off the storm, I say.

That paragraph shows great ignorance of economics.

As did this one.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:45:35 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/14/2017 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:58:26 -0400, G Ross wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Downed trees are good for the local economy. All the bearded
backwoodsmen are swarming around in their pickups with a chainsaw and
a trailer. Let them make a little money off the storm, I say.

That paragraph shows great ignorance of economics.

As did this one.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

No, that was a sarcastic response. The second sentence should have
made that pretty clear.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

OK, I know it won't help a lefty understand economics (an
impossibility) but the opportunity lost from the money that now has to
go into replacing those vehicles exceeds the economic gain from the
companies making the replacements.

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

OK, I know it won't help a lefty understand economics (an
impossibility)

but the opportunity lost from the money that now has to
go into replacing those vehicles exceeds the economic gain from the
companies making the replacements.

As you'll note above, the statement was simply that it's likely that
the automakers will have higher output the next couple of quarters, which
may make investing in them more attractive. In no way can the
statement be confused as making any comment on the overall economic picture
related to the replacement.

As usual, you've jumped to a conclusion that allows you namecall, like
any 4th grader.



Now, you want to talk politics, we can discuss the lack of zoning in
the Houston area that led to many houses being built in flood zones,
and the inability of congress to write rules restricting the application of
government backed flood insurance to locations that should never have
been built-on in the first place. Perhaps pay off once, but never again
for the same property.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

OK, I know it won't help a lefty understand economics (an
impossibility)

but the opportunity lost from the money that now has to
go into replacing those vehicles exceeds the economic gain from the
companies making the replacements.

As you'll note above, the statement was simply that it's likely that
the automakers will have higher output the next couple of quarters, which
may make investing in them more attractive. In no way can the
statement be confused as making any comment on the overall economic picture
related to the replacement.

No, the implication is that it the economy is improved. It's
certainly not, though GDP might be (since it's an artificial number).

As usual, you've jumped to a conclusion that allows you namecall, like
any 4th grader.

I would never overestimate a lefty, such as yourself.

On 9/14/2017 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:45:35 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/14/2017 11:38 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:58:26 -0400, G Ross wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Downed trees are good for the local economy. All the bearded
backwoodsmen are swarming around in their pickups with a chainsaw and
a trailer. Let them make a little money off the storm, I say.

That paragraph shows great ignorance of economics.

As did this one.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

No, that was a sarcastic response. The second sentence should have
made that pretty clear.



OK. ;~) Mind you I have a very good friend/neighbor that moved here
almost 7 years from Indiana. He was way anxious to go through a
hurricane. I warned him a few years ago to be careful what you wish
for. His home is actually the lowest point in our neighborhood and he
had water up to his front porch. He wants nothing to do with a
hurricane ever again..and he had no damage at all. I just get a little
touchy when it comes to hurricanes and what they bring.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.
Sell your insurance co stocks, and don't bitch when your insurance
rates fo up

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:


Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are
needed, where would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma?
The Keys? The coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and
villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so,
where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep
them ready for use when they may sit fior decades?


You'd want them to be stored within easy distance of rail lines, because
on land railroads are the way to move them efficiently. I'd probably
scatter them about: a small pile in Chicago, a small pile in Cheyenne, a
small pile in Kansas City. Maybe about a train's or two's worth. That
way, when disaster hits the trains can all originate at different points
and hopefully won't disrupt too much traffic on the railroads.

Some prestaging may be useful, but you'd probably be better off loading
the trains as the storm is hitting rather than trying to prestage and
finding the forecast was wrong.

Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!

On 15 Sep 2017 03:56:00 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:


Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are
needed, where would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma?
The Keys? The coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and
villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so,
where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep
them ready for use when they may sit fior decades?


You'd want them to be stored within easy distance of rail lines, because
on land railroads are the way to move them efficiently. I'd probably
scatter them about: a small pile in Chicago, a small pile in Cheyenne, a
small pile in Kansas City. Maybe about a train's or two's worth. That
way, when disaster hits the trains can all originate at different points
and hopefully won't disrupt too much traffic on the railroads.

Some prestaging may be useful, but you'd probably be better off loading
the trains as the storm is hitting rather than trying to prestage and
finding the forecast was wrong.

Or the units damaged by the storm.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 22:47:55 -0400, wrote:

On 15 Sep 2017 03:56:00 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:


Where would you store them? Considering we now know where they are
needed, where would you have stored them prior to Harvey and Irma.

Would enough containers have been delivered to Barbuda prior to Irma?
The Keys? The coastal areas around Houston - e.g. the small towns and
villages, etc.?

Do you load up California in anticipation of the Big One? If so,
where? Everywhere?

How do you determine where the next disaster will strike? How do keep
them ready for use when they may sit fior decades?


You'd want them to be stored within easy distance of rail lines, because
on land railroads are the way to move them efficiently. I'd probably
scatter them about: a small pile in Chicago, a small pile in Cheyenne, a
small pile in Kansas City. Maybe about a train's or two's worth. That
way, when disaster hits the trains can all originate at different points
and hopefully won't disrupt too much traffic on the railroads.

Some prestaging may be useful, but you'd probably be better off loading
the trains as the storm is hitting rather than trying to prestage and
finding the forecast was wrong.

Or the units damaged by the storm.
Hate to have 200 container homes floating around Houston or the Bif
Eazy during the storm - - - -

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:17:48 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 12-Sep-17 6:23 AM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Don't focus so tightly on the container as it is. Look at it as it could
be: Windows, doors, plumbing, electricity can ALL be installed. ...

And by the time you do that w/ a box not intended for the purpose might
as well just have a purpose-built prefab -- oh, FEMA already did that.

There's an outfit around here using them as the basis for tornado
shelters and folks use them all over as storage and occasionally
repurpose for small barns, etc., and yes, rarely for dwelling space but
they're simply not particularly well-suited for the purpose at hand.

Geez, pick at nits much?

Whether you start with a container as a framework or whether you start
from scratch and build a habitation that can be handled using standard
container-handling equipment, you end up in the same place, and
whining about how it can't be done is just obstructionism.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

OK, I know it won't help a lefty understand economics (an
impossibility)

but the opportunity lost from the money that now has to
go into replacing those vehicles exceeds the economic gain from the
companies making the replacements.

As you'll note above, the statement was simply that it's likely that
the automakers will have higher output the next couple of quarters, which
may make investing in them more attractive. In no way can the
statement be confused as making any comment on the overall economic picture
related to the replacement.

As usual, you've jumped to a conclusion that allows you namecall, like
any 4th grader.



Now, you want to talk politics, we can discuss the lack of zoning in
the Houston area that led to many houses being built in flood zones,

So it's better if factories or stores or farms are in flood zones?

and the inability of congress to write rules restricting the application of
government backed flood insurance to locations that should never have
been built-on in the first place. Perhaps pay off once, but never again
for the same property.

The whole point of goverment flood compensation (it's not "insurance"
in anything but name) is that it pays for damage to properties that no
insurer in their right mind would cover.

On 9/16/2017 8:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:


and the inability of congress to write rules restricting the application of
government backed flood insurance to locations that should never have
been built-on in the first place. Perhaps pay off once, but never again
for the same property.

The whole point of government flood compensation (it's not "insurance"
in anything but name) is that it pays for damage to properties that no
insurer in their right mind would cover.



It is one thing to insure in a 500 year floor plain and something else
for houses built right on the beach. I don't feel to bad for someone
that builds 40 feet from the high tide line. It is not "if" but "when"
and don't ask me for a handout to rebuild your $3million beach house.

On 9/16/2017 7:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:51:13 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:08:58 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:08:53 -0500, Markem
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:24:02 -0400, wrote:

The FEMA trailers made during Katrina weren't much good the
first time around.

The people in Indiana who built most of them might disagree, the
stories of bad trailers are likely the one that got the most press. It
did pump money into Indiana to people who needed it.

Broken windows are great for the economy. Too bad we don't have more
cat-4 hurricanes.

Buy your automaker stocks now - they're about to replace 700,000+
flooded out vehicles.

...and what about the other side of the equation. Leftys never look
at the whole picture.


Please, enlighten us as to the "other side of the equation". Demonstrate
your superior education in economics.

OK, I know it won't help a lefty understand economics (an
impossibility)

but the opportunity lost from the money that now has to
go into replacing those vehicles exceeds the economic gain from the
companies making the replacements.

As you'll note above, the statement was simply that it's likely that
the automakers will have higher output the next couple of quarters, which
may make investing in them more attractive. In no way can the
statement be confused as making any comment on the overall economic picture
related to the replacement.

As usual, you've jumped to a conclusion that allows you namecall, like
any 4th grader.



Now, you want to talk politics, we can discuss the lack of zoning in
the Houston area that led to many houses being built in flood zones,

So it's better if factories or stores or farms are in flood zones?

No, you simply do not build at all in those zones.



and the inability of congress to write rules restricting the application of
government backed flood insurance to locations that should never have
been built-on in the first place. Perhaps pay off once, but never again
for the same property.

The whole point of goverment flood compensation (it's not "insurance"
in anything but name) is that it pays for damage to properties that no
insurer in their right mind would cover.

Still clueless? Flood insurance is sold by insurance companies and is
backed by the government, FEMA FEMA will "LOAN" money to those that
have no flood insurance

J. Clarke writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)

Now, you want to talk politics, we can discuss the lack of zoning in
the Houston area that led to many houses being built in flood zones,

So it's better if factories or stores or farms are in flood zones?

Again with the strawman. Why build anything in a flood zone?

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:26:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

J. Clarke writes:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:25:38 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)

Now, you want to talk politics, we can discuss the lack of zoning in
the Houston area that led to many houses being built in flood zones,

So it's better if factories or stores or farms are in flood zones?

Again with the strawman. Why build anything in a flood zone?
Which would leave half of the southern coastal USA swampland - like
it was before the developers moved in.