Cult Of Climastrology Now Wants To Question Private Home Ownership

In many Democrat areas, they are attempting to force multi-family housing in areas that are typically single family in suburban and rural areas, because single family housing is raaaaacist and bad for ‘climate change’. The Nation wants to take it even further

From the screed

This fall, California residents awakened to a new reality of inconvenience and terror. In early October, the utility companies Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison all announced precautionary power shutoffs for thousands of customers, prompted by especially hot, dry conditions and forecasts for strong winds.

This is all based on the fires in California, and the author spends a lot of time on them, building up to

But few are discussing one key aspect of California’s crisis: Yes, climate change intensifies the fires—but the ways in which we plan and develop our cities makes them even more destructive. The growth of urban regions in the second half of the 20th century has been dominated by economic development, aspirations of home ownership, and belief in the importance of private property. Cities and towns have expanded in increasingly disperse fashion, fueled by cheap energy. Infrastructure has been built, deregulated, and privatized, extending services in more and more tenuous and fragile ways. Our ideas about what success, comfort, home, and family should look like are so ingrained, it’s hard for us to see how they could be reinforcing the very conditions that put us at such grave risk.

To engage with these challenges, we need to do more than upgrade the powerlines or stage a public takeover of the utility companies. We need to rethink the ideologies that govern how we plan and build our homes.

From the early years of this continent-wide republic, federal policies such as the Homestead Act of 1862 rewarded private home ownership and pioneering activities such as making individual claims on land. Programs such as the “Better Homes in America” campaign in the 1920s attempted to make private property ownership a moral issue in addition to a financial one, linking home ownership with upstanding citizenship and family values, as a presumed bulwark against communist class collectivity.

And to prove that it’s not a bulwark they want to take away private home ownership. OK. Of course, the author has to include private home ownership as raaaaacist, hatred of the poor and people of color, single family homes being Bad, inequity, etc

The valorizing of homeownership and property rights results not only in increased exposure to climate-change-fueled fires, but also in our inadequate responses to them.

Good grief. Anyhow, this keeps going and going and going

In California, that would mean more than moving away from fire-prone areas. It would require planners, designers, and community members to consider planning for fire alongside issues of health and accessibility, social services, physical beauty, and other aspects of environmental sustainability and climate protection. “Defensible space” could mean protecting more than an individual structure; it could scale up to protect a neighborhood, or better yet, an entire district. At the same time, such zones of defense could be designed to address other aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation: They could include green infrastructure for water infiltration and “soft” flood protection, as well as ecological linkages, such as drought-resistant, non-fire-fueling vegetation to protect biodiversity and lessen urban heat islands. These “green” zones could be planned around community centers and libraries, public institutions that have already become important places of refuge and mobilization in times of disaster.

Oh, your Betters will plan everything for you, and you’ll live in an urban commune.

Even with the threats of climate change and rampant fire looming, the ideals of the American dream that have been instilled for more than 150 years will be difficult to dispel. Those ideals have blinded us to other possibilities. Given the scope and scale of the climate crisis, it is shocking that we are being presented with so few serious, comprehensive alternatives for how to live. We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities.

Nope, nope, don’t say this is communism/Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism/Etc.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Cult Of Climastrology Now Wants To Question Private Home Ownership”

  1. Nighthawk says:

    And here are the lies again. The fires were not caused nor fueled by ‘climate change’. They were caused and fueled by poor management. Management that the oh so wise government was responsible for.

    So, by all means, let’s give the government even more power and chances to screw things up.

  2. Dana says:

    Another renter declares that the actions of other people, homeowners, is wrong, wrong, wrong!

    So, she wants to move “away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities,” huh? I can just see them now, the construction of massive, Stalinist apartment blocks in the US, which she would probably consider more “just.”

    • DCE says:

      And those old Soviet style apartments will be of the same quality as the originals and will be shared with two or three other families.

  3. John says:

    Rural red America (especially females) has been moving to the cities and exburbs for decades. They flee rural areas because of both economic and social reasons
    How best should we provide new housing for both them and also the natural population increases ? Should internal migration and reproduction be banned or restricted as in China ? Or should we try to find the best way to fit them in to where they wish to live ?

    • formwiz says:

      Ever hear about free will?

      • Kye says:

        Leftist have heard of free will but to them it’s just a fable like Santa Clause. Force is all they know. That’s why John ponders “how best should WE provide new housing…”. People are moving but WE have to provide housing because the law of supply and demand has been rescinded and only WE can provide. They ca’t figure that stuff out for themselves.

        Trump 2020 So WE can provide nothing!

        • DCE says:

          The assumption is made that any such construction will be allowed by the watermelon environmentalists. Considering how daunting it is to build new housing units in existing urban areas (San Francisco and Portland are two excellent examples of that particular problem) trying to build new high density housing will be difficult, if not impossible. Yes, it seems contradictory, but we have seen more than a few examples of the watermelons working against their own stated interests. Of course they will vehemently deny any such paradox exists.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Rural red America (especially females) has been moving to the cities and exburbs for decades.


      According to the United States’ original 1950 urban classifications, rural America is crushing it. It’s home to about as many people as urban America, and it’s growing faster. So why do headlines and statistics paint rural areas as perpetually in decline?

      Because the contest between rural and urban America is rigged. Official definitions are regularly updated in such a way that rural counties are continually losing their most successful places to urbanization. When a rural county grows, it transmutes into an urban one.

      In a way, rural areas serve as urban America’s farm team: All their most promising prospects get called up to the big leagues, leaving the low-density margins populated by an ever-shrinking pool of those who couldn’t qualify.

      Imagine how unfair a sport would seem if one team automatically drafted the other’s best players the moment they showed any promise. That’s essentially what happens when we measure rural areas as whatever’s left over after anywhere that hits a certain population level is considered metropolitan. It distorts how we see rural America. It skews our view of everything from presidential politics to suicide to deaths caused by alcohol.

      Officially, the years since 2010 have marked a turning point for rural counties. For the first time, they have lost population. Their share of the U.S. population hit an all-time low of 14 percent. But those startling statistics are due entirely to changes in county definitions, according to a paper presented to the Rural Sociological Society by Ken Johnson of the University of New Hampshire, Daniel Lichter of Cornell University and John Cromartie of the Agriculture Department.

      Any attempt to make a clean break between urban and rural will look arbitrary, as Kentucky lawyer Amanda Kool writes in the Daily Yonder, a publication focused on rural news and issues. Bracken County, where she lives, has about 8,000 people. Hay trucks and Amish buggies often disrupt her commute. And yet, because of commuting patterns, Bracken was designated as part of the Cincinnati metropolitan area in 2003.


      “There are places on the outer edge of big metropolitan areas where you’d swear you were in a rural area,” Johnson said. But because many residents commute to a central city, they’re considered part of that metro area.

      A few years after every census, counties like Bracken are reclassified, and rural or “nonmetropolitan” America shrinks and metropolitan America grows. At least on paper. The character of a place doesn’t necessarily change the moment a city crosses the 50,000-resident mark.

      The sprawling, diverse segment of the United States that has changed from rural to urban since 1950 is the fastest-growing segment of the country. Culturally, newly urban areas often have more in common with persistently rural places than with the biggest cities.

      So as with many things, the data hasn’t changed, but the classification has. This is reminiscent of years ago when Michelle Obama pushed for a changing of measure of how “obese” in children was measured and viola! There were more obese kids!

      Once again, we see that in his desire to hate, John misses actual data and lacks critical thinking skills. That’s what hate will do to you.

      After all, all the left has is hate.

  4. formwiz says:

    To the surprise of absolutely no one.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Steven Milloy is a lawyer and lobbyist who has represented the fossil fuels and tobacco industries.

    Now he nonsensically claims that the “climate” = “communism”.

    • formwiz says:

      He’s right.

    • DCE says:

      Elwood, have you never heard of “watermelon environmentalists”? They are green on the outside, but red on the inside. They use different terms to justify taking control of everything, with “The State” being replaced with “Gaia/Mother Earth.” They espouse the same solutions as Marx and Lenin – state control of all aspects of life. If that isn’t communism, then what is?

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The far-rightists make up all sorts of nonsensical names and have innumerable conspiracy theories. It appears all rightists, including the insane Trump, have bought into the QAnon hoaxes.

  6. Jl says:

    “Milloy represented fossil fuels and tobacco industries..”. Which has nothing to do with private home ownership. Nothing says communism like central planning deciding where you can live.

  7. Kye says:

    Milloy representing anyone is his job, Fredo. He’s a lawyer, that’s what they do. Or do you invalidate a lawyer who defends a murder or a child rapist like Hillary did?

    Got a pic of your holiday dining table, Fredo.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Milloy pretends to know something about climate science when he’s actually a shill for the fossil fuels industry, Dildo. He chooses to misinform. Why TEACH uses him for source is a mystery.

      You should know by now Dildo that I don’t click on your links. Anyway we had 6 holiday dining tables and a very Merry Christmas, thanks.

  8. formwiz says:

    And you’re a shill for the climate scam industry, Dildo. You choose to misinform. And do it poorly. Why Troll Central uses you for source is a mystery.

    You should know by now Dildo that I don’t click on your links.

    Of course, you did. That’s why you had to come up with that fiction about 6 holiday dining tables and a very Merry Christmas.

    Just like 4th of July. Nobody invited you and no one certainly came to visit. Even Mommy had someplace else to go.

    Nobody likes a limp sex tool and that’s all you are.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You’re a moron, Dildo2, and full of scheisse.

      • formwiz says:

        The only tool here is you, mein Reichsfuhrer-SS (you have a real passion for the German language; I take it that extends into many other things German, like Einstatzgruppen).

Pirate's Cove