Thread: Alternative lifestyles Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020017
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What a lovely place to hang out ...

Except that it turned out to be a terrible fire hazard and death trap [Frown]


Maybe a dozen people died there yesterday.

"Oakland is known for its art scene and underground warehouse spaces that sometimes function as “live-work” buildings with studios and makeshift rooms."

How much freedom should people have to build, construct and live as they wish?

There were several fire and safety orders on this building, obviously never enforced.

Should the people have been forcibly evicted for their own safety?

Where is the line between freedom and safety?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It looks fantastic. It is a sad loss.

I think part of an alternative lifestyle is an acceptance that some of the cotton-wool safety of our modern age is rejected. No they shouldn't have been forcibly evicted, because that is a rejection of personal choice.

Yes it is a tragedy. It is an avoidable tragedy. But the cost of avoiding it might be too high. IMO.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Just FYI: This might be a little soon for us California folks to discuss--especially those of us in the SF Bay Area. Not criticizing.
[Angel]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
I once went to a party at a derelict building in Toronto that some friends-of-friends were inhabiting. There was something wrong with the elevator, and in order to get to the floor where the party was, you had to go to floor above it, then go back down, but not all the way, to the party floor, and then the door would finally open. Or some such rigamarole.

Can't say I'd ever want to live like that, even if I was back in my semi-bohemian days.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I think part of an alternative lifestyle is an acceptance that some of the cotton-wool safety of our modern age is rejected. No they shouldn't have been forcibly evicted, because that is a rejection of personal choice.
I think it's entirely possible the people there didn't give the building codes a lot of thought one way or another and didn't really make a conscious choice. I'll be interested to see whether there are interviews with people who lived there who discuss whether they thought about safety and if they would do it the same way now that they know the risks.

Moreover, this happened when they gave a concert there and advertised it on Facebook. If you're going to have an event open to the public in a venue not designed for that event, you need to get a permit, and the permit process would have revealed that it was not safe for the public. If you are going to invite the public, you have a duty to assure safety standards are met.

Third, when a place like this burns, it's a threat to nearby property, and people don't have a right to jeopardize others' safety and property.

The landlord who was clearly looking the other way, the property manager doing likewise, and the event manager who didn't pull a permit should all get a hard look by authorities for their responsibility in this.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
RuthW - the fact they had been warned (Fire and safety orders) suggests that they did know it was potentially dangerous.

I hadn't seen that there was an open-invite party. While I think that people should have a lot of freedom to live as they want, they should not be able to impose this on others without their reasonable knowledge. This includes neighbours who would be affected.

And I realise this makes it very difficult. I should be allowed to live as I want, unless what I want impinges on others. But what I want will always impinge on others, to some extent. It is always compromise.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...when a place like this burns, it's a threat to nearby property, and people don't have a right to jeopardize others' safety and property.
Not to mention jeopardizing the firefighters.

Moo
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
If you can't manage life safely, you need to be saved from yourself. There are limits to individual freedom even to the point of protecting you from yourself. Family particularly have a need to limit dangerous behaviour and lifestyles.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The balance between an individual's choice and the obligation to society will always be contentious. The conveniences of living in society will come at a cost of some personal freedoms. Especially when one's freedom's impinge upon another's safety.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If you can't manage life safely, you need to be saved from yourself. There are limits to individual freedom even to the point of protecting you from yourself. Family particularly have a need to limit dangerous behaviour and lifestyles.
But we all take huge risks every day, just getting in cars or crossing the road involves risk.

1732 road deaths in the U.K. in 2015. If these deaths were caused by terrorism there would be panic on a world wide scale.

But, we accept the risk to ourselves and others in order to have the freedom to drive.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The risk inherent in motoring is different to that in a dangerously constructed, maintained building.
The building can maintain its function and be built safely.
The efficiency of travel by motorised vehicles diminishes as one approaches the safest speed.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
We also minimize the risk in driving. Seat-belts, airbags, regular inspections, penalties for drinking, drug use, phone use, and so on. Having regulations for buildings seems similar to me.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...when a place like this burns, it's a threat to nearby property, and people don't have a right to jeopardize others' safety and property.
Not to mention jeopardizing the firefighters.

Moo
Damn right. This is criminal. I mean life sentence criminally negligent manslaughter. It doesn't matter if everyone gave informed consent - which they didn't.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But we all take huge risks every day, just getting in cars or crossing the road involves risk.

1732 road deaths in the U.K. in 2015. If these deaths were caused by terrorism there would be panic on a world wide scale.

But, we accept the risk to ourselves and others in order to have the freedom to drive.
You might enjoy the poem "Autogeddon". I personally would like to see driving become much, much more expensive, probably by charging for distance travelled and making fuel the price of gold. I hate cars.

quote:
IN 1885 Karl Benz constructed the first automobile.
It had three wheels, like an invalid car,
And ran on alcohol, like many drivers.

Since then about seventeen million people have been killed by them
In an undeclared war;
And the whole of the rest of the world is in danger of being run over
Due to squabbles about their oil....

 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We also minimize the risk in driving. Seat-belts, airbags, regular inspections, penalties for drinking, drug use, phone use, and so on. Having regulations for buildings seems similar to me.
The safe driving speed for a vehicle is 0.
This is not a practical thing, so it must be raised and we compromise safety in that. A vehicle is unsafe unless constant attention is paid in its use.
A building, outside of earthquake areas, can be built to be safe except for the most extreme conditions. A moment's lapse whilst opening a door does not risk collapsing it.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I personally would like to see driving become much, much more expensive, probably by charging for distance travelled and making fuel the price of gold. I hate cars.
How much is a carrot worth to you? 1,000 Canadian? How much is a steak worth to you? 20,000?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
So the western consumerist lifestyle is built on the lives of other people. Should we ban that?

I do get the arguments against this, but I really struggle with any view that is restricting other peoples lifestyle choices. If it was decided that homosexuality was dangerous (for the race, because they cannot reproduce), should that be banned? Of course not, but once you start arguing for styles and beliefs to be banned because they can be argued to have negative repercussions, where do you stop?

And before anyone says "ah but it would never go that far", just look at western politics this last year. Which is why I tend to veer on the libertarian side, while accepting all of the comments above.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I do get the arguments against this, but I really struggle with any view that is restricting other peoples lifestyle choices.
So you want to live in Dickens' London?

Let's say we made building safety codes into optional guidelines. The state of California could say, "Look, here's what we think is safe, but it's up to you." So some buildings would be built in adherence to earthquake codes, and some wouldn't. Some landlords would maintain safe buildings, and some wouldn't. Since it would be cheaper to skirt the safety codes, poor people would end up in the less safe buildings. It wouldn't be a lifestyle choice, it would be yet another penalty for the poor. There are already plenty of illegal apartments in the US, and you know how many of them are discovered? Electrical fires.

And without government permitting, how would you know whether the apartment you rented was safe to live in? Buildings too old to meet current earthquake standards that have not been retrofitted have to be marked as such. A liberterian approach to this and other safety standards would mean you might never know if a building you entered was safe to be in.

I also wonder how many of the people who lived in this warehouse made an informed decision about the risks they were taking. The landlord asserts that no one was actually living there. One former tenant says the person who collected the rent did live there, with his family ( LA Times article). His wife is refusing to talk to the press; she needs to consult a lawyer first. If everyone present was okay with the conditions in this building, she wouldn't be worried about being sued. Want to bet me that there won't be lawsuits?

And I doubt very much that so many people were living in a warehouse just because it was really cool. Sure, it was cool. Lots of other less dangerous situations can be equally cool ( Last Bookstore, LA). They were living in a warehouse because rents in Oakland have been going through the roof. The middle class got pushed out of San Francisco, so they're in turn pushing artists out of Oakland.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If you can't manage life safely, you need to be saved from yourself. There are limits to individual freedom even to the point of protecting you from yourself. Family particularly have a need to limit dangerous behaviour and lifestyles.
But we all take huge risks every day, just getting in cars or crossing the road involves risk.

1732 road deaths in the U.K. in 2015. If these deaths were caused by terrorism there would be panic on a world wide scale.

But, we accept the risk to ourselves and others in order to have the freedom to drive.
.
All of which is just to say, we have to accept a balance or compromise between safety and usability (not the best term but another doesn't come to mind). The question becomes where we draw the line, not whether there's a line at all.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

... we have to accept a balance or compromise between safety and usability (not the best term but another doesn't come to mind). The question becomes where we draw the line, not whether there's a line at all.
Yep.

Which is why I asked the question in the OP - where is the line between freedom and safety?

We could ask the God who gave us 'freedom' the same question.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

... we have to accept a balance or compromise between safety and usability (not the best term but another doesn't come to mind). The question becomes where we draw the line, not whether there's a line at all.
Yep.

Which is why I asked the question in the OP - where is the line between freedom and safety?

We could ask the God who gave us 'freedom' the same question.
There isn't, of course, as I'm sure you'll agree, only one such line, but rather a number of lines depending on which 'freedoms' we're talking about, the people, the circumstances, etc.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Aren't there a number of different questions here?
There is a whole series of economic relationships in this situation, in my view, which need to be mapped in detail before I would be comfortable discussing it in detail.

Meanwhile, if a building is the only shelter a person can afford, is that an alternative lifestyle, a sign of desperation, testimony to exploitation? All of the above?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
RuthW - No, but then the people living in those conditions were not choosing to.

I do see a need to have regulation. I do accept the need for this warehouse to have been dealt with better (by enforcing some or all of the notices, maybe).

I just have a problem supporting government restrictions on how people should live. Somewhere, I want a balance between allowing people to live how they want, and keeping people safe. I don't know the answers.

Anyway, you are a liberal, peace-first, hankie squeezer. Are you not supporting, at least to an extent, peoples free choices? Not dismissing this particular tragedy, but trying to engage with the wider questions in the OP.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
You can't eliminate risk, and often eliminating one type of risk creates another (though usually a less immediate one).

But that doesn't mean that health and safety precautions should be ignored or overridden.

I don't know the full details of this story. Generally I think if you want to stay in a building you think may be unsafe, that's your choice. But I think it is irresponsible to invite other people to that building without making the risks clear.

In Wales we've recently had the 50th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster where many children were killed because nobody investigated a potential and predictable risk.

On the question of driving: it is risky driving cars, and those of us who do so accept that risk. But we have to pass a test first, and we have to have our cars checked for safety, and we have insurance in case of accidents. We don't let small children drive. Doctors can write to the DVLA to revoke the license of someone no longer medically fit to drive.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
We don't let small children drive. Doctors can write to the DVLA to revoke the license of someone no longer medically fit to drive.
But we willfully allow the most dangerous category of drivers free rein on the roads - males under 25.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
RuthW - No, but then the people living in those conditions were not choosing to.

I do see a need to have regulation. I do accept the need for this warehouse to have been dealt with better (by enforcing some or all of the notices, maybe).

I just have a problem supporting government restrictions on how people should live. Somewhere, I want a balance between allowing people to live how they want, and keeping people safe. I don't know the answers.

Anyway, you are a liberal, peace-first, hankie squeezer. Are you not supporting, at least to an extent, peoples free choices? Not dismissing this particular tragedy, but trying to engage with the wider questions in the OP.
Their choicelessness, lack of agency, is irrelevant. Somebody OWNED the building and was making money out it. THEY are completely liable for how they let it be used.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

And I doubt very much that so many people were living in a warehouse just because it was really cool. Sure, it was cool. Lots of other less dangerous situations can be equally cool ( Last Bookstore, LA). They were living in a warehouse because rents in Oakland have been going through the roof. The middle class got pushed out of San Francisco, so they're in turn pushing artists out of Oakland.
Rents in the entire Bay Area are computed based on attracting the Silicon Valley set and pricing out lower income people. This has been going on since 1998, and keeps getting worse.

I touched on this on my prayer thread mention of the incident-- if you want to rent a standard apartment, meaning not an inlaw, or a room in a house, most places the rent for a studio apartment STARTS at $1500/mo. Studio meaning one big room with a bathroom, and a stove / fridge tucked in the corner.

People have already been pushing or exceeding the legal room occupancy limits, and sneaking hot plates, etc, in rooms not cleared for kitchens.

Holding that in mind-- I have occasionally searched artist studio rental rates, thinking even a few hours away from my own unhappy living situation might be worth the expense. The rates seemed to hover around $300-400 / mo. A lot of these places offered 24 hour access, while posting a disclaimer about living in prohibitions.

Less than a third of a standard rental.

It's not hard to do the mental leap-- Hey, I could sneak in an overnighter here or there. Indeed, one of my ex husband's friends used their shared artist warehouse to bunk out when he and his girlfriend had fights. Imagine someone is already in the habit of doing that and their girlfriend kicks them out. The temptation to use the studio as transitional housing would be hard to resist.

Now imagine a landlord who has stated the studio policies but allows themselves to be talked into turning a blind eye. They might actually convince themselves they are being compassionate and generous, rather than setting themselves up for disaster. The people living there might believe that, too.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Imagine jailing the bastard for life and taking all his assets.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Going to the question, how do you balance safety and usability?

In my mind, if a building is not safe, it is not useable.

If we did not have community regulations and standards we would still have child labor, unsafe sweatshop conditions (any one ever year of the Triangle Shirtwaste Fire?

Heck, we don't have to go that far back.

Safety standards are there for a reason.

Going to the comment about it being hard for people in the bay area to talk about this now, my son is in the bay area, serving a church near Oakland. Oh, ya, it is a hard topic this weekend, but they do have to talk about it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Imagine jailing the bastard for life and taking all his assets.
I am actually of the opinion that " negligible homicide" is appropriate in this case. The fact that the residents had to build their own staircase indicates that the building owner wasn't even maintaining basic safety for a work studio.

I really am surprised that you spun right past the stuff I was saying about the renters, though-- I guess you are content with them being written off as alternative lifestyle hippie types rather than people struggling to find affordable living arrangements in a region that has become toxic to people of moderate/ low income. Yes, the landlords need to be held accountable, but already the media is aggressively focusing on that while spinning past the larger issue of why people would feel compelled to form colonies like the Oakland warehouse in the first place.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I suspect that you mean negligent homicide, what we would call manslaughter.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Going to the question, how do you balance safety and usability?

In my mind, if a building is not safe, it is not useable.

If we did not have community regulations and standards we would still have child labor, unsafe sweatshop conditions (any one ever year of the Triangle Shirtwaste Fire?

Heck, we don't have to go that far back.

Safety standards are there for a reason.

Going to the comment about it being hard for people in the bay area to talk about this now, my son is in the bay area, serving a church near Oakland. Oh, ya, it is a hard topic this weekend, but they do have to talk about it.
One solution would be to compel various cities that are deliberately stalling state mandated low income housing projects*to get their thumbs out and build them, so that when we displace all these people in illegal rooming situations they have somewhere to go. Hi, Marin City! Hi, Belmont! Get off your asses! [Mad]

* my understanding is that town above a certain population are required to provide a proportionate number of HUD units. Towns get around this by planning the developments and then diverting the budget for the projects elsewhere, so they can claim they can't afford it. A few years back George Lucas donated land and development funds to one such stalled HUD project, to the fury of Marin County, which is still stonewalling the project.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Imagine jailing the bastard for life and taking all his assets.
I am actually of the opinion that " negligible homicide" is appropriate in this case. The fact that the residents had to build their own staircase indicates that the building owner wasn't even maintaining basic safety for a work studio.

I really am surprised that you spun right past the stuff I was saying about the renters, though-- I guess you are content with them being written off as alternative lifestyle hippie types rather than people struggling to find affordable living arrangements in a region that has become toxic to people of moderate/ low income. Yes, the landlords need to be held accountable, but already the media is aggressively focusing on that while spinning past the larger issue of why people would feel compelled to form colonies like the Oakland warehouse in the first place.
They were either or and both I'm sure Kelly. I'm not writing them off except as being blameworthy. They were not. They were desperate I know. Even if they were "a buncha fucken hippies". And now they are horribly dead. I've visited guys in squats, tents, bivouacs in the hedges and worse: City housing where I could see through the floorboards where the shit literally dropped through to the gutted room below open to the elements. I couldn't believe I was in England, in Western Europe. It's NOT their fault. It's the city's fault. Our fault. It's what we vote for. What we shrug at, pass by, won't pay taxes for. There is something very, VERY wrong that modern, filthy rich social democracies can tolerate any of this. We, the rich, the powerful, the burghers are without excuse. It - taxation - shouldn't be a matter of politics, like minority rights in a pluralistic society.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Ok, then we are on the same page.

What is angering me, I guess, is the current Bay Area reportage-- they are acting like illicit housing arrangements are a new thing. I am a member of the Bay Area working poor, and all my friends are, too. Some of them crammed themselves into only slightly more sound converted warehouses, too. Two friends of mine lived in " bedrooms" that were basically converted walk in closets. Garages where people share space with the homeowners storage are very popular. For the Bay Area media to suddenly go, "oh, my shocked ass. What are we going to do about these godawful people dodging building code laws? " just strikes me as being really slow on the uptake. When Willie Brown stated he didn't want anyone making under $50,000 a year living here, didn't y'all think that would effect people's housing opportunities ?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I suspect that you mean negligent homicide, what we would call manslaughter.
Yes, negligent. Hit predictive text too fast.

I'm not entirely sure, but I thought "negligent homicide" was a harsher sentence than manslaughter in tne US-- closer to Murder 2.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
This link, Wikipedia and INAL, would appear to call them equal in gravity.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Hm. Ok.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
Since the earthquake deaths in Christchurch I have become more aware of the need for building codes. I don't think it's acceptable to have no codes whatever and let people decide to take risks for themselves because some will end up forced to live in under the code buildings because of their circumstances.

As Kelly mentioned we too have people living in substandard housing, not because it is cool or alternative, but because that is all they can afford. There are also landlords making a profit out of this.

Personally I don't know what the answers to this are, but I think that it will take political will plus the creativity of people to come up with a variety of possibilities.

I just don't know if we have the will.

Huia
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
The owner/founder,(?) who purportedly laughed off fire warnings in the past, posted this on his Facebook:
quote:
"Confirmed. Everything I worked so hard for is gone. Blessed that my children and Micah were at a hotel safe and sound. It's as if I have awoken from a dream filled with opulence and hope...to be standing now in poverty of self worth."
That he would be waxing poetic about his own loss of "opulence" when he's a least partly responsible for the deaths of 33 people makes me sick.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The owner/founder,(?) who purportedly laughed off fire warnings in the past, posted this on his Facebook:
quote:
"Confirmed. Everything I worked so hard for is gone. Blessed that my children and Micah were at a hotel safe and sound. It's as if I have awoken from a dream filled with opulence and hope...to be standing now in poverty of self worth."
That he would be waxing poetic about his own loss of "opulence" when he's a least partly responsible for the deaths of 33 people makes me sick.
It's also odd.

I wonder why his children were at a hotel? Maybe keeping them safe, not from the fire - but from the party/gig?

Will he be prosecuted?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And there is a considerable historical tradition of warehouse and industrial space being converted into residential use. All those lofts in Manhattan, all those warehouse condos in the London docks -- they began with artists or marginal people living in spaces that had not been intended for residential use. Gradually amenities like plumbing and heat were added, and they were brought in line with building codes.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
The thing about building codes is that they are about structuring how people live in community with others. They mean that I shouldn't be allowed to construct a building in such a way that it endangers my neighbours, or puts them at serious risk of loss.

In my own home, if I choose to put flammable objects on the stairs and illuminate them with candles, I am allowed to do so - that it at the liberty end of the spectrum.

If, however, I turn it into a place used by the public, then I am expected to have some precautions in place to ensure that it is safe. This is not only because a crowd of people invited to an event may not readily be able to gauge fire safety issues, but also because we have a public expectation that we don't have to do that in a public venue. People running such venues are subject to certain standards.

Looking at the pictures, I think it does look like a great place to hang out, and, but if i was going to spend the night there I would want to know my exit routes. I don't think I'd fancy being in a crowd there. If I was at an event there, I might quieten nagging concerns about safety with the thought that there are standards applied to buildings used for public performances/events.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

were the people in that warehouse really living an alternative lifestyle, or were they just trapped by economic necessity in a building they knew to be unsuitable?
Even if the building itself is suitable, if you live in an apartment block or something similar, you typically have no control over what the other residents are doing in their own apartments. Which means you have to rely on some combination of laws and standards of decency to prevent the people living below you from making crack, storing flammable gasses, or doing anything else which is likely to destroy the building.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The owner/founder,(?) who purportedly laughed off fire warnings in the past, posted this on his Facebook:
quote:
"Confirmed. Everything I worked so hard for is gone. Blessed that my children and Micah were at a hotel safe and sound. It's as if I have awoken from a dream filled with opulence and hope...to be standing now in poverty of self worth."
That he would be waxing poetic about his own loss of "opulence" when he's a least partly responsible for the deaths of 33 people makes me sick.
I think the notable part is that the "opulence" was a dream while the "poverty of self worth" -having contributed to the deaths of all those people- is his retched reality.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

were the people in that warehouse really living an alternative lifestyle, or were they just trapped by economic necessity in a building they knew to be unsuitable?
Even if the building itself is suitable, if you live in an apartment block or something similar, you typically have no control over what the other residents are doing in their own apartments. Which means you have to rely on some combination of laws and standards of decency to prevent the people living below you from making crack, storing flammable gasses, or doing anything else which is likely to destroy the building.
Lots of detail in the Strata Titles Act and by-laws to deal with that.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
The list of names released so far doesn't include anyone I knew, but several of my friends lost people in the fire. [Votive]

In an actually functional city, a venue would have been shut down if it was unsafe. It's sadly typical of Oakland that Ghost Ship could have been cited repeatedly with no follow-up.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

were the people in that warehouse really living an alternative lifestyle, or were they just trapped by economic necessity in a building they knew to be unsuitable?
Even if the building itself is suitable, if you live in an apartment block or something similar, you typically have no control over what the other residents are doing in their own apartments. Which means you have to rely on some combination of laws and standards of decency to prevent the people living below you from making crack, storing flammable gasses, or doing anything else which is likely to destroy the building.
Lots of detail in the Strata Titles Act and by-laws to deal with that.
That'll be those pesky government restrictions on how people should live were mentioned upthread. It's not just about evil slumlords profiting from the innocence of creative freethinking bohemians: it's also about the freethinking bohemians in the next flat being creative with safety regulations.

My tolerance for government interference in someone's living arrangements extends as far as the risk that they pose to other people. So in the case of governments who condemn people's homes because they are eccentrics who don't have an electric service, and the city code says they have to have one: huge screeds of Hell-worthy language and condemnation for the Government, who should get back in their lane.

(This is different from slumlords. I'm happy to place restrictions on places that may be offered for rent as housing, and to crack down on people who rake in profits by renting the poor a cubicle in the corner of a warehouse. Though if you do that, you also have to do something about providing housing for the people who can't afford any.)

But the people that want to pile their back yard in a closely-built subdivision full of highly flammable junk are a legitimate target of government intervention.

[ 06. December 2016, 04:28: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Though if you do that, you also have to do something about providing housing for the people who can't afford any.)
This is the issue, IMO. If a municipality like Oakland, or any other large city, strictly enforced codes, there would be a much larger housing problem.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Derick Almena Ghost Ship manager. Odd, did you say, Boogie? [Help]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Whose first reaction was to post a lament on Facebook for the loss of his "dream" and his possessions.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Derick Almena Ghost Ship manager. Odd, did you say, Boogie? [Help]
That interview kind of makes me glad I don't hang out in musical/artistic circles so much anymore. Whatever the opposite of nostalgia is, that's kind of how I'm remembering my social life twenty-odd years ago, watching the video.

That said, there probably isn't a lot that the guy SHOULD be saying to the media at this point in time, given that he is almost certainly at the centre of a pretty intense police investigation. So I'd say the reporters were lucky to get as much out of him as they did.

And I take his point that he lived there himself with his family, so we can probably assume that he never remotely expected that anything like this would ever happen. And I'm speculating that, if as is being claimed, the city itself wasn't doing anything about the code violations, he probably rationalized his lack of oversight by saying to himself "Well, if the city doesn't care, it's probably all kosher."

[ 07. December 2016, 14:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Derick Almena Ghost Ship manager. Odd, did you say, Boogie? [Help]
That interview kind of makes me glad I don't hang out in musical/artistic circles so much anymore. Whatever the opposite of nostalgia is, that's kind of how I'm remembering my social life twenty-odd years ago, watching the video.

That said, there probably isn't a lot that the guy SHOULD be saying to the media at this point in time, given that he is almost certainly at the centre of a pretty intense police investigation. So I'd say the reporters were lucky to get as much out of him as they did.

And I take his point that he lived there himself with his family, so we can probably assume that he never remotely expected that anything like this would ever happen. And I'm speculating that, if as is being claimed, the city itself wasn't doing anything about the code violations, he probably rationalized his lack of oversight by saying to himself "Well, if the city doesn't care, it's probably all kosher."
Seems pretty obvious that he has not engaged legal counsel. His interview is solid proof that you can't fix stupid.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
News, as of this evening: the building hadn't been inspected in at least 30 years.
[Paranoid]

Plenty of blame to go around, it seems.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Report on CBS last night: most major cities in US have similar warehouse "ghost ships." Philidelphia is moving to close the ones in its city limits down. Problem is, many residents have nowhere else to go.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Report on CBS last night: most major cities in US have similar warehouse "ghost ships." Philidelphia is moving to close the ones in its city limits down. Problem is, many residents have nowhere else to go.
IMO, it is a vicious cycle. Those who have nowhere to go find ignored places. Those places are relatively ignored because there is no other place for those people to go.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
I understand the importance of building codes. I happen to live in an area where over 3,000 people became homeless and several others are dead because of a forrest fire caused by someone deciding they did not want to bother with permits and codes to hook up their hot tub. The do it yourself wiring shorted out and now over a year later people are still struggling to get on with life. It will be years before the trees return and many will carry the emotional scars of this horrible event for their lifetimes. One may think they are simply following freedom of lifestyle but it can involve others, who suffer for their choices. Even today when I smell smoke I find myself tense up and although thankfully my house did not burn I will never forget the terror of fleeing the falling embers. I know the scars on the landscape will greet me each day and I look around me with sadness. I am sure the person wiring his hot tub did not intend to do harm, but building codes are there for a reason. Enjoy your alternative life style as long as it does not endanger my life, and my community.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--I've heard there's a video now (locally and recently made here in the SF Bay Area, I think) on how to have a safe warehouse party.

--Graven Image, I'm sorry for what you went through. If I may ask, what happened to the person responsible? (Feel free not to answer.)

--Sometimes, tenants' groups give out info on how to legalize a situation where people are squatting in a disused building. (E.g., getting mail delivered to you at the address can help establish residency.) I'm not sure if it includes safety advice, but this would be a really good time to add it.
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
Golden Key asked
quote:
--Graven Image, I'm sorry for what you went through. If I may ask, what happened to the person responsible? (Feel free not to answer.)
The person has been charged I think it will be a long process. The person is claiming that fire investigators are wrong.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0