Re: Could our Mold Illness Validation Dream Become A National...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/2006 1:58:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

Ideas, people?

Please, think about this issue.. Mold disease risk and 'the cost of

repairing mold damage' is a 'perfect storm' for some, just as Katrina

was.. to DESTROY and scatter to the winds poor communities..

THEY ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS JUST FOR RECOGNIZING MOLD ILLNESS.. IT COULD

END UP THROWING MILLIONS OUT INTO THE CRUEL STREETS.. TO DIE...

Huh? So are you saying the best thing to do is NOTHING?

[Guest guest]

What you say is true. And I believe it to be a root to the problem of why

we have not been able to have our illnesses recognized and treated. It's fear

on the part of stakeholder industries that has intentionally stifled medical

information.

With that said, Yes, there will be an adjustment period. But it won't come

all at once with Church bells ringing from a tower. It will be a gradual

change and won't set off a mass homeless situation.

Landlords who own buildings depend on rent for income. If they can't rent

it, no income. They will have no choice but to repair the buildings.

I have to say, those teachers are on it! Have you noticed all the articles

KC is posting lately about schools taking this very seriously? It's a good

thing!

Sharon

In a message dated 1/20/2006 5:46:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,

quackadillian@... writes:

NO, Not at all.. But I DO think we need to start discussing how a

massive national remediation effort would be paid for *without pricing

millions of poor people out of their 'newly improved' homes..

If a landlord sees a liability issue inherent in renting a moldy home,

he will 'go out of business' and make a family homeless unless there

is

1.) A way for him- or the community - somehow - to finance that remediation

2.) That requires he keeps the housing affordable and doesn't throw

people out on the street..

This is going to cost a lot of money.. But if we tried to figure out

ways to make it affordable, we could prevent a huge national problem

which will surface if a lot of substandard housing is suddenly

verified to be toxic..

What I am saying is that the landlord, if he/she has to pay for

remediation, will see it right to pass that cost on to the tenants..

and they won't be able to afford it and will end up on the street..

(because, lets face it, any in many landlords get to jack rents up

they will jump on..)

No, I am not suggesting we do nothing, just that we see that we need

to be talking about how the USA will prevent the burden of the cost

from being a nightmare for poor people, as their landlords use this

cost to justify tearing their buildings down.. 'urban renewal' it was

called in the 60s and it overwhelmingly marginalized poor people, many

whom were forced to sell homes they had worked their whole lives to

pay for for pennies on the dollar.. Sometimes, just two or three years

later, those same properties changed hands for ten or fifteen times

what the previous owners had gotten..

Here in the city I live in, huge areas were razed.. it looked like

someone had dropped the atomic bomb..

[Guest guest]

We are living a nightmare right now, and it will most likely get worse

before it gets better! HOWEVER we must continue to fight and pray they will

recognize this illness in order to save lives, especially the millions of

children who are sitting in rotting schools across Amercia!!

Sue

like the rest of you, I am confident that all of us will be vindicated

soon, and the cause of our sufferings will be recognized, with all

that entails - i.e. changes in the legal landscape..

Great, right?

It COULD be.. but right now, with the current situation in Washington,

I think the likelihood is much higher that the 'official' verification

that mycotoxins and mold cause permanent human illness will lead to a

NIGHTMARISH SITUATION in which millions of poor RENTING families lose

their homes

[Guest guest]

Here's the deal. We are sick. They need to clean up the buildings. When

things become more understood and therefore more of a liability, they will

have to adhere or they won't be able to collect income.

It's kinda of a " Be there or be square " situation.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

NO, Not at all.. But I DO think we need to start discussing how a

massive national remediation effort would be paid for *without pricing

millions of poor people out of their 'newly improved' homes..

If a landlord sees a liability issue inherent in renting a moldy home,

he will 'go out of business' and make a family homeless unless there

is

1.) A way for him- or the community - somehow - to finance that remediation

2.) That requires he keeps the housing affordable and doesn't throw

people out on the street..

This is going to cost a lot of money.. But if we tried to figure out

ways to make it affordable, we could prevent a huge national problem

which will surface if a lot of substandard housing is suddenly

verified to be toxic..

What I am saying is that the landlord, if he/she has to pay for

remediation, will see it right to pass that cost on to the tenants..

and they won't be able to afford it and will end up on the street..

(because, lets face it, any in many landlords get to jack rents up

they will jump on..)

No, I am not suggesting we do nothing, just that we see that we need

to be talking about how the USA will prevent the burden of the cost

from being a nightmare for poor people, as their landlords use this

cost to justify tearing their buildings down.. 'urban renewal' it was

called in the 60s and it overwhelmingly marginalized poor people, many

whom were forced to sell homes they had worked their whole lives to

pay for for pennies on the dollar.. Sometimes, just two or three years

later, those same properties changed hands for ten or fifteen times

what the previous owners had gotten..

Here in the city I live in, huge areas were razed.. it looked like

someone had dropped the atomic bomb..

>

> Huh? So are you saying the best thing to do is NOTHING?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/20/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> What you say is true. And I believe it to be a root to the problem of why

> we have not been able to have our illnesses recognized and treated. It's

fear

> on the part of stakeholder industries that has intentionally stifled medical

> information.

Yes, of course, it's happening across the board on a host of issues

that involve clashes between the interests of Americans and the

way-too-powerful corporate interests.

>

> With that said, Yes, there will be an adjustment period. But it won't come

> all at once with Church bells ringing from a tower. It will be a gradual

> change and won't set off a mass homeless situation.

>

What I am afraid of is a sort of Katrina-like situation in which panic

sets in about the cost and decisions are made to condemm huge swatches

of urban areas (containing poor people) through eminent domain

instead..

i.e. 'Destroying a village to save it "

> Landlords who own buildings depend on rent for income. If they can't rent

> it, no income. They will have no choice but to repair the buildings.

>

But what if 'the cost is too high' to do that and then continue

renting it to poor people? Or what if the 'health hazard demands

tearing these blighted buildings down'

> I have to say, those teachers are on it! Have you noticed all the articles

> KC is posting lately about schools taking this very seriously? It's a good

> thing!

Yes, This is a vitally important issue. Most Americans DO believe in

public education. Ending that would be like giving up on the future

for all of us.

>

> Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I think that this scenario is highly unlikely.

Because of course, 'the money won't be there'. Come on, you have to

see how stacked the cards are.. If not, open your eyes..

The various entities involved will ensure that is so.

Its kind of like our Social Security being given away to Wall Street.

They will have already made other, back-room plans for it. (any

government remediation money going to politically well connected

entities) by the time the official word goes out that mold is toxic.

Ever see either of " The Bicycle Thief " or " Beijing Bicycle " films?

A big shell game with you against 40 thieves, and the one thing you

KNOW is that without SERIOUS and LOUD ACTIVISM, the POOR are

GUARANTEED TO LOSE...

What I see is huge sections of cities being torn down, " Model Cities "

style.. (dating myself here) to be replaced by expensive apartment

blocks with the 'low income' apartments going to people who make an

average of around $50k/year (in non-urban areas) and $65-80k year (in

urban areas)

Thats the new face of government subsidized housing. Its for teachers,

policemen/women, nurses, etc. People who can't afford to buy but who

are needed by communities. The low income housing is built - by for

profit corporations - on land seized by eminent domain from poor

homeowners and poor landlords of 'blighted' buildings.

Read the news, (at least on the coasts.)

Old residents get forced out, most can't afford the 'option' of moving

in to the apartments that 'are built for them'

Note that renters dont get anything offered to them, only single

family homeowners..

On 1/20/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

> Here's the deal. We are sick. They need to clean up the buildings. When

> things become more understood and therefore more of a liability, they will

> have to adhere or they won't be able to collect income.

>

> It's kinda of a " Be there or be square " situation.

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Here are some resources.

Note that buildings were condemmed and I am pretty sure, the owners

would typically receive 'fair market value' for their *land* only.

(considering the 'blighted' status of their neighborhoods, this was

often not much.)

http://www.yale.edu/nhohp/modelcity/index.html

http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/reports/display.php?id=173

also try doing a search for the phrases " urban renewal " or " slum

clearance " on google..

On 1/21/06, LiveSimply <quackadillian@...> wrote:

> " We had to burn the village to save it "

>

> US military officer quoted during the Vietnam era

>