I am committed to educating President Obama, his staff and the US public about super-energy efficient, hurricane, earthquake and tornado proof dome housing kits manufactured by American Ingenuity. There is another way of lving besides in box shaped houses that are inefficent and weak. But our clients cannot obtain financing from banks and lenders who are comfortable with old time, stick built housing.
I just sent the following survey comments to our State of Florida Obama headquarters.
One of the ways we can change America's dependence on foreign oil is by building super energy efficient housing that can save 50% to 70% on homeowners’ AC and heating costs. In America such new green technology housing has been developed by US entrepreneurs. But the perspective customers cannot get financing on these alternatives. Banks and lenders loan on old stick built technology houses….not on new technology dome homes and other outside the box housing alternatives. I would like to know who to contact in the US government that can make mortgage financing and appraisals easier for geodesic domes and other outside the box green housing alternatives. Once we find out these options, how does the public get informed about these alternative green housing options and the financing that is available?
My company, American Ingenuity, has developed this new housing technology over a 30 year period and has sold its dome homes into 46 US states and 12 foreign areas...but our perspective customers cannot get financing…that is why you do not see thousands of them in every region of the country. Also the domes come with a hurricane, earthquake and tornado guarantee. Our offices and factory are located in Brevard County where the Cape Canaveral/Cape Kennedy Space Center is. I have invited President Obama to visit our factory when he visits the Space Center. Our web site is www.aidomes.com What can you do to help us obtain financing to expand our factory, hire factory and construction workers, and help our clients obtain financing?
refute the arguments in this video....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
all of the economic policies and votes described are reasons i would NOT vote for you if Roe v. Wade were not going to be at risk.
affordable housing screws up the economy and has been counterproductive to reaching any of its intended goals.
if you want people in homes, EDUCATE THEM and lower taxes on businesses so they can afford to make a profit hiring Americans.
A key provision of the Obama's Blueprint for Change promotes an increase in the supply of afforable housing, while a companion provision calls for establishing "Promise Neighborhoods" to bring a comprehensive strategy to fighting neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. So can America build itself out of the housing crisis? In a provocative white paper written for the National Trust for Trust, Donovan Rypkema argues not. Instead, he say that we can no longer throw away our older houses and our historic neighborhoods. They are needed today to supply affordable housing. Read the full white paper
As citizens, and especially as professional planners, we've seen it time and again, a well-intentioned piece of legislation goes awry when it is actually implemented. The prescription plan, Medicare Part D, is a perfect example. Rarely has any level of government produced such a convoluted, contortionist, confusing program (you'd almost think the Republicans wanted it to be a disaster to prove their contention that government shouldn't be in the business of providing health care support - but that's a mighty cynical view and we wouldn't want to be cynical, now would we). So-called efforts at tax simplification have done anything but simply our 1040s. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 as implemented regarding community residences for people with disabilities (group homes, halfway houses, recovery communities) has spurred substantial litigation resulting in case law that couldn't possibly reflect the intent of the drafters of the legislation.
All of these bills were written top down. What if they were written bottom up? Namely, start with what you want the result to be.
For example, what if the Medicare Prescription Plan was written by first identifying how it should actually work? What if the drafters had first determined that they wanted a system that would be simple to use and not overly complicate the lives of our most vulnerable elderly (which we will all be among someday if we live long enough)? What if the drafters had started out by determining that the prescription plans should be uniform -- covering all drugs seniors might need instead of each plan covering different drugs? What if the drafters had started out by charting out exactly how the plan would work and then written the legislation so it would work that way?
