Woman evicted and house condemned for using solar power

Originally posted by Hermitoutofhishole
Yes you are absolutely right !!!! it would be much better if the woman was homeless -

Right - How is it possible that you can be evicted out of your own home - for not doing what the government says you need to -
but it is perfectly acceptable (to the government) to have countless homeless people living on the streets - in squalor - with NO heat -
NO food -NO help - NO home....

Do we not see the pure absurdity of this?

Repeat after me -
We are not property.
We are not owned.




[edit on 28-1-2010 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I understand your angst, all that I can say is this, the last time things happened like this, to our families, our friends, there was an uprising, I do not want to see such things, to vote is a choice of the lesser of two evils, anyone figure that out yet? To cry out is to be ridiculed, to stand is to invite a fight. So I guess the answer to our quandry is, dont be there when the punch gets to you.

[edit on 28/01/10 by TacticalVeritas]

reply to post by Helmkat


She lost her job in Jan 2009 according to the article. They were probably installed before that time.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I fail to see the problem here other than the woman's stupidity. Run your solar cells and batteries to your heart's content, but, leave your power hooked up. They only bill you for what you use, if you don't use any, then no bill. From what I read, it says that you must have the capability to run a refridgerator, heat and cool the house, it doesn't say that you have to do it. As far as the power company is concerned, this law should work both ways. They shouldn't be allowed to disconnect service, they should be required to provide power that meets those standards as well.

I think what you wrote is called "the bleedin obvious" and now you've spoilt my sport in seeing folks get all agitated at energy companies, local rules etc when in fact it all boils down to the woman being mind numbingly stupid in the first place!

The city requires homes to have enough electricity to power a refrigerator, cool a residence to no higher than 88 degrees and heat a residence to at least 68 degrees.

That rule baffles me. Who decides how much heat is enough or too much for a flat? I can understand that landlords requires the temperature to remain above freezing, to protect the pipes, or even that some Health ordinance may require, let's say, at least 55°F to protect the health of potential children, but 68°F?
There's only 60°F in my flat at the moment, shall I fear a visit from city officials?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I fail to see the problem here other than the woman's stupidity. Run your solar cells and batteries to your heart's content, but, leave your power hooked up. They only bill you for what you use, if you don't use any, then no bill.

That's not true everywhere, with some companies you have to pay a 'subscription' fee which can be pretty high, or a yearly connection fee. For instance, the subscription fee for my water and power bill for my doomstead has been higher than all I've paid for the actual consumption of water and power for the 2 years I've been there. Not interesting when you're financially tight.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Breizhoo]

solar power is illegal in my city. If you want solar power you have to move outside the city into somewhere else in the county.

This kind of **** makes me sick.

Mankind has lived & survived just fine the last 10,000 years (more or less depending on who you talk to) without electricity. Actually when you think about it we've only been able to harness it's power within the last 100 years (that's 1%).

I grew up in a poor family (in the 80's) and remember lots of times we didn't have electricity for months at a time. Food was kept in coolers with ice; light came from candles, lanterns and flashlighs; entertainment from board games, reading & good ol imagination; warm baths came from boiling 5 big pots of water on the stove.

Yes the convenience factors of electricity are wonderful to have, but it is not a requirement to live a great life. To say your standard of living is not up to par so we're taking your home (and as other people stated make them live in their car or homeless shelter) sounds like some kind of evil corporate dictatorship... "live by our standards or die"

This is a really anti "government" article for no truthful reason. She is part of a caravan club, and they have rights over "her" home on their site. I believe they should be free to demand pretty much whatever they like of one the guests on their site.
Lefty propaganda, like this, should be closed down for bad representation of the facts (much like the whole man made C02 debate, verses natures actions).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I can not believe again the replys on page 1 wont read the rest i dont know if they are mostley from BRAT adolesent yanks , oh i seen 1 from a french person but people you miss the point i am goin to presume most of the people from usa are rich yuppies with no hearts . ieven if she had kids whats it to anyone except the parents she is down on hard times and lost her house because she used her brain to try and get power or a little .double standards people lived before without power ,and whats that callin her car . i wont miss a beat if if the upper middle class end up broke. and americans you wonder why why why why why and you most 98% never change

PS sorry U xsx a for spelling gramer and maths

Originally posted by blair56
so...whats the big deal? She didn't have enough electricity to live there. Get a job, make out a budget, don't eat at mcdonalds, and pay your bills. There is nothing wrong with this at all, and you ppl complaining are ignorant. I've worked in real estate and kicked out many ppl for not having there utilites turned on and i would have done the same thing to this lady. And her complaining about not being given a notice in an adequate amount of time is ridiculous. YOU DON'T HAVE YOU ELECTRICITY ON. its pretty common sense of whats going to happen

i have seen posts where people call you heartless

i wont get personal, but your words do disturb me, its sad to see words like that come out of a humans mouth, i would expect more from even a robot

not only do the words you wrote lack compassion, but economical knowledge as well, that even a cold hearted robot could understand

fine, lets say its all about economy, lets say the lady was wrong


it still makes better economical sense for her to stay in her house then in her car, she is a better consumer indoors then in a car plain and simple, in the house she was feeding into the economy, by kicking her out and forcing her to live in her car, she is now dependent on something and more often then not when dependent in the usa, its the government that ends up helping in terms of welfare, making an even larger impact on the economy


your words not only lack compassion, but lack of knowledge for the economy, if you truly worked in real estate, then i am no longer shocked as to why we had and have the housing crisis, great work

ahh what she should have done is
bought the power from the power company, then go down and turn all here breakers off except for kitchen and a/c
then use her solar power for other things

you still sign your contract with your power company, but dont use any of it or just use very little.
just because it is supplied does not nesserily mean u gotta use it

From 24 m2 of monocristalline solar panels mounted on a roof you can
harvest about 2,700 kWh per year under medium solar conditions in my
place Luxembourg or in adjacent Germany.
If this energy were fed into the grid, we would be getting 0,60$ per kWh
= 1,620 $, 2 1/2 times as much as we have to pay for our electricity
consumption (0,15 $ per kWh at night, 0,22 $ during the day).
Surfaces up to 220 m2 per home can be installed under these conditions
with a subsidy of about 40% of the total investment cost. The 0,60$ are
guaranteed for the first 15 years. Before then the system is calculated to
be amortized.
Check out your fridge consumption per year.

Here property is protected by the constitution. Nobody could evict you
from your home for not having paid a utility bill. Only courts can expropriate
a home by a ruling in the higher interest of the general public in a settlement.

Everybody can sleep outside in winterly conditions. No institution could force
him into shelter. In extreme cold they are being offered hot tea and blankets.
Our medical system would send ambulances to carry them into hospitals,
when they can no longer decide for themselves or if bodily harm is imminent.

People unwilling to work and bumming around with or without roof over
their heads will get a support of $ 1,540,00, enough to lead a minimally
decent life.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Aside from the spelling (never been a strong speller, my apologies), why not address the points I bring up? Perhaps because it is easier to express anger at the system instead of accepting that she played a large part in her own problems?

reply to post by Helmkat
Okay, she is to blame for some of her circumstances. But what has the government accomplished by evicting her? She is living in her car now because she didn't have enough solar power to heat/cool her house and run a refrigerator. LIVING IN HER CAR. Thank you for a wonderful city government there!

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
The thread title is misleading. She was not evicted for using solar power.

The city has codes for housing in order to prevent slum conditions. For instance, a landlord could rent a place to you with no electricity. That is not good. So the city has these codes in place. It is about maintaining a decent dwelling that is not too hot or too cold. Plus you need to be able to refrigerate certain foods so they don't spoil.

Also think about children who might be subjected to bad conditions.

If she did things according to code, then she could have solar power all she wants.

And living in a convertible Mazda Miata? What is that about? Is she mental? The photo makes her look bitter. Why wasn't she in her house?

No, you don't get! If I want to live without a refrigerator or stove, that is my choice. Once again, people are tricked by "reasonable" prerequisites to live the way they want. The government will reason people out of every last freedom a human has. This is simply an attack by the machine and grid masquerading as a goodwill enforcement of building codes.

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by davesidious
She violated the building codes by installing panels insufficient for the needs of her house.

It's not about the energy companies - she can live very happily, and legally, off the grid if she's willing to do it properly. Heck, she can even sell energy back to the power companies, making them pay her for the privilege.

This is not a conspiracy, but civilisation, and some strange woman being strange and ignorant of the law.

Indeed and what many people are failing to see here is that the Electric company -did not- throw her out of her house. They do not have that power. It was her local goverment following laws. Thats it. Point fingers at the laws of community if you like but railing at the power companies in this case is pointless.

it may not be the company directly as it is directly the governments fault, however, id be hard-pressed to believe the company had nothing to do with that legislation being put in place


and to those who say the panels were insufficient

from reading the story i dont buy it, from what the story says is that she chose to power other things, that means she had the ability to run the fridge, just chose not to, the ordinance doesnt state you have to run the fridge but have the ability to


it also doent specify how much power was being generated, on top of that, if she was not hooked up to the grid, how do they know she didnt generate enough power?

reply to post by Dramey


She should cut down on the booze.I mean it is amazing how people who have plenty of booze always whining about having no money.

Originally posted by dashar
ieven if she had kids whats it to anyone except the parents she is down on hard times and lost her house because she used her brain to ...snip

Children have no choice but to exist in whatever condition the parent or guardian provides...to have children means to accept responsibility for them.

personally, I dont care much for the little things, but thats beside the point...fact is, they are creatures someone chose to provide a minimum set of life standards for the health and welfare of said child until the age of 18. if the person cannot meet the standards, there are ways of getting help, if that is not enough, then do the right thing and let the state hold onto them for awhile (assuming no family member wants them).

she had em, now she has to provide for them...broke or not. having kids is easy, being a parent is hard.

This really all boils down to the fact that governmental agencies are increasing their power.

Pay income tax or lose your home .
Pay state income tax or lose your home.
Pay school tax or lose your home
Pay property tax or lose your home
Pay county or city taxes or lose your home
Build it as they say or you cant live there
install what they say or you cant live there
keep your yard as they say or face losing it
use the utilities they say of lose it
have the appliances they say or lose it .
keep the inside as clean as they say or lose it .
dont exceed the number of pets they say or lose it
Keep only the pets they say or lose it
You cant have live stock in certain zoning or face seizure
if there is a question of criminal actions growing or selling pot or any drugs you can lose your home .

The homes many times are commended and people are forced out then in a short time . That is if the occupants cant bring it up to code in the time frame prescribed . Then the property can then be considered abandoned subject to seizure by city county or state .

I am sure there are a few I missed , It is not that this lady is stupid as some have remarked it is the governmental agencies are figuring new ways to remove you from your property and sell it to someone else who WILL FOLLOW the rules . Your home is yours as long as they ALLOW YOU TO KEEP IT

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Aside from the spelling (never been a strong speller, my apologies), why not address the points I bring up? Perhaps because it is easier to express anger at the system instead of accepting that she played a large part in her own problems?

I would rather not expect any apologies from you for spelling mistakes or expect any apologies from her for not being able to pay her electric bills. What I do expect is that government mind their damn business and never dare tell a homeowner what type of power they are "allowed" to use. I would rather not have to argue about freedom, and would like to think that all Americans are pro liberty and aghast at the notion that governments think they can act in such tyrannical ways.

So, why don't address the points I bring up? Perhaps its easier for you to roll your eyes and enjoy your own apathy instead of accepting that there are laws in this country that forbid governments from abrogating and derogating a persons rights. If this woman acted criminally, then show me the victim. If you can not effectively prove this woman acted criminally, then perhaps you should obey the law and acknowledge that this woman, regardless of how intelligent she may or may not be, did nothing wrong and deserves to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Have you proven her guilt? Have you? Can you read me addressing your points while I ask you to address mine?