Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?

[placeholder]

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Well, he got five people to vote for it with that headline, so maybe he should get a raise. 

I know that one modern complaint is that parents spoil children by setting a very low bar for success. But that's at least emotionally understandable. I don't think Connda needs to be coddled.

[Yellowtail]

45 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

most people from western countries have reasonably comfortable lives.

if you're from a decent country with a decent standard of living complaining that the govt does nothing but stomp on your head, i am not drinking your Kool-Aid.

 

I never said all the government does is stomp on my head that's just you making stuff up.

 

Clearly you've had enough Kool-Aid to last a lifetime. 

[cmsally]

In order to try and understand the "bigger picture" I would recommend listening to someone like Whitney Webb who manages to describe the situation very succinctly and accurately (I have linked a podcast below). 15 minute cities are basically part of a push to create a new asset class which would see the natural world classed as assets and hence we will certainly have to pay for them. It is a way to keep populations and countries in a state of debt based on their  carbon levels and maybe some other emissions. With the stakeholder capitalists in charge, the goalposts could move at any time and will be surely set to keep many countries and populations in a state of servitude.

 

Using the Climate Crisis: Whitney Webb Discusses Global Elites’ Takeover of Nature

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/using-the-climate-crisis-whitney-webb-discusses/id1460817064?i=1000542245966

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said all the government does is stomp on my head that's just you making stuff up.

 

Clearly you've had enough Kool-Aid to last a lifetime. 

On the other hand you did write this:

 

"So do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? 

Most of them only care about being reelected and staying on the gravy-train, and looked at how rich they seem to get as "public servants". "

 

You have made it your M.O. to denigrate various groups by casting unprovable assertions on their motivations and/or character. I think the technical terms for such characterizations is "cheap shots".

 

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said all the government does is stomp on my head that's just you making stuff up.

 

Clearly you've had enough Kool-Aid to last a lifetime. 

On the other hand you did write this:

 

"So do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? 

Most of them only care about being reelected and staying on the gravy-train, and looked at how rich they seem to get as "public servants". "

 

You have made it your M.O. to denigrate various groups by casting unprovable assertions on their motivations and/or character. I think the technical terms for such characterizations is "cheap shots".

 

[Yellowtail]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's funny. One of the accusations that climate change denialists level at the climatological community is that they are being alarmist.

Why is that funny? I think it's funny that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist. 

 

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yet alarmists mangle the 15 minute city concept to draw the most hysterical dystopian conclusions on the basis that it redirects automobile traffic. No plan prohibits people driving cars for as long and as far as anyone wants to. None.

The "plan" offered in this thread is to implement "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" 

 

Does that not seem extremist to you? Does that really sound like the "plan" will allow everyone to drive as long and far as they like? 

 

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And since when haven't the rich been privileged in cities? They can afford to rent on a monthly basis expensive parking spaces that most cannot afford. And casual parking in cities is very costly. Can the "hoi polloi' afford to park in those? Spare us your crocodile tears.  

The rich are privileged everywhere, the issues is not that the rich are privileged, but that the proposed policies reward the rich at the expense of the poor. 

 

I have nothing against the rich, but I do not want to be priced out of owning a home with a yard, and driving a car so they don't have to sit in traffic. 

 

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

On the other hand, the poorer you are the less likely you are to own a car. With less traffic congestion, public transit will provide much better service between districts.

 

And emergency vehicles will be able to arrive at their destinations more quickly.

I think over 90% of households in the US have at least one vehicle.  Virtually every climate policy you support with make owning a car a driving less and less affordable, so spare us your crocodile tears. 

 

Why don't you start a thread up a 15-minute city plan that is not so draconian and we can go over the merits? 

 

[StreetCowboy]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

...

 

The "plan" offered in this thread is to implement "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" 

...

 

To be fair, "the plan" offered in this thread is only the straw man of a poster on a social chat thread in Thailand, with no links to real proposals by any agency, and linked to a misinterpreation by a third-party web site.

There are many people who think that urban planning should be based around people, not cars, and, from what we have seen on this thread, many people who think that urban planning should be based on driving, not residents. 

It seems that some people think "I'm all right, Jack - it's our grandchildren who will have the problem, let them sort it out".

"Yerdedoanthair, bytheway.  A millionlemmingscannaebewrang" 

[Yellowtail]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

On the other hand you did write this:

 

"So do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? 

Most of them only care about being reelected and staying on the gravy-train, and looked at how rich they seem to get as "public servants". "

Well do you? Do you think the governments are full of really smart people working hard to improve the lives of their constituents? I do not.

 

And I don't mean everyone in the government, or no one in the government, and I don't mean left or right, I mean by and large. 

 

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You have made it your M.O. to denigrate various groups by casting unprovable assertions on their motivations and/or character. I think the technical terms for such characterizations is "cheap shots".

You mean cheap shots like you accusing me of crocodile tears when I claim something disproportionally hurts the poor or when you call me a climate denier or anti-science when I disagree with something you say? 

 

It is not possible to "prove' anyone's motivation, but when the policies being pushed disproportionately helps the people pushing them, does it not even deserve some level of suspicion? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

To be fair, "the plan" offered in this thread is only the straw man of a poster on a social chat thread in Thailand, with no links to real proposals by any agency, and linked to a misinterpreation by a third-party web site.

But to be clear, that is the only plan up for discussion. Please start a new thread with a real plan you think is realistic. 

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

There are many people who think that urban planning should be based around people, not cars, and, from what we have seen on this thread, many people who think that urban planning should be based on driving, not residents. 

That is not me, and that is not what I have seen in the thread. Remember the premise of the thread is to disallow people from driving further than they could get in 15 minutes.

 

To be clear, cars do not take it upon themselves to go driving, people that are residents drive them.

 

 

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

It seems that some people think "I'm all right, Jack - it's our grandchildren who will have the problem, let them sort it out".

"Yerdedoanthair, bytheway.  A millionlemmingscannaebewrang" 

Do you like to use that argument against everyone you disagree with. Some people believe a suburban/rural life with a car will be better than an urban environment without, should they be claiming you don't care about your grandkids? 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why is that funny? I think it's funny that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist. 

 

The "plan" offered in this thread is to implement "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" 

 

Does that not seem extremist to you? Does that really sound like the "plan" will allow everyone to drive as long and far as they like? 

 

The rich are privileged everywhere, the issues is not that the rich are privileged, but that the proposed policies reward the rich at the expense of the poor. 

 

I have nothing against the rich, but I do not want to be priced out of owning a home with a yard, and driving a car so they don't have to sit in traffic. 

 

I think over 90% of households in the US have at least one vehicle.  Virtually every climate policy you support with make owning a car a driving less and less affordable, so spare us your crocodile tears. 

 

Why don't you start a thread up a 15-minute city plan that is not so draconian and we can go over the merits? 

 

Please prove  "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." This is just more of your massively false wholesale villifications.. 

 

What do Connda's questions have do to with your assertion that 

"You will not be made to cower & comply to it. They will just make sure that everything they do not want hoi-polloi to have. like big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot will just become incredibly unaffordable.

You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

 

 

And of course it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that this question is based on a misinterpretation of the 15 minute city concept. As you may recall the the topic was named by Connda as:

"Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" And just by coincidence his 2nd questions cites the same 15 minutes?

Both questions are pretty clueless, actually. Basically the second question could be characterized as "What if something meant what it doesn't mean?"

Why even propose a baseless dystopian question? That belongs in the fiction forum if there is one.

 

And how exactly would this policy reward the rich at the expense of the poor? Owning a car and paying for fuel is very expensive The less disposable income one has, the more of a burden they are.. If people with low incomes could walk or bicycle to do their shopping, they'd save a lot of money. And middle class folk could make do with one car instea of two. With less traffic congestion public transport would be far more reliable. How does this not benefit the poor? 

And until electric cars become predominant. there are major health benefits of autos not spewing pollution in neighborhoods.

 

And by what process of reasoning did you come up with 

"You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

 

And why would a 15 minute city make "big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot...incredibly unaffordable"? What's the economic or financial connection?.

 

 

 

[save the frogs]

by the way, let's say you live in Bangkok.

you may not be able to drive anywhere you want, but i don't think there will be restrictions on using public transit.

maybe being in bigger cities like Bangkok will be better in the future.

if you're bored in your local area, at least you can pop in the public transit to get around to different parts of the city. 

 

 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

"You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

i don't mind being in a tiny apartment if it's close to all the amenities, cycling paths, a gym, restaurants, vibrant neighborhood ... i'd rather be walking distance to a vibrant neighborhood than a big isolated house in the suburbs. 

 

only read and see what they approve? there's millions of books on amazon. turn off the daily news garbage.

and most of this conspiracy stuff is nonsense.

 

[cmsally]

Behind "all this " is the plan to turn the natural world into a collection of assets. Forests, seas, oceans, beaches, grassland, desert etc will be turned into investment products and you won't be running the show. This is something that challenges the traditional rights of land ownership, tribal land, collective land and even national land (since the rights will be mostly owned by global "stakeholders" (corporations)). Just to have a glimpse of how this could go wrong, look at how impossible it is to tax/control companies like Amazon and groups like Black Rock. They , and those like them would be running the show. They could decimate the planet with no legal recourse; it would be for "your own good" and all in the name of profit.

https://impactentrepreneur.com/natural-asset-companies-nacs/

[cmsally]

This is perhaps one of the most detailed summaries I have found on 15 minute cities.

https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/Industries/government-public/perspectives/urban-future-with-a-purpose/15-minute-city.html

 

There are a lot of people saying "I can drive there in 15 minutes". It is not about driving, it is about walking or cycling in 15 minutes. I doubt many people will be able to own a car in this type of city due to the lack of space; there are many references to density so it seems they want to pack the people in.

 

Anyone with even half a vision can see it is very unlikely you will be owning a car in one of these cities, in fact you probably won't own anything apart from a lease (if that). I doubt there will be any freehold property seeing as everything will probably be classed as a "community asset".

 

"Launch schemes to promote affordable housing in every neighbourhood: Cities can achieve this by establishing mandatory affordable housing requirements for any new development or by implementing concepts such as inclusionary zoning (instead of segregated zoning). Additionally, incentives or density bonuses can be provided to urban planners and developers, to encourage the creation of affordable and inclusive communities. Johannesburg in 2020 emerged as an example of deploying the inclusive housing concept, with a framework for increasing affordable housing and addressing the lack of social mix in race and income across the city.⁵

Allow flexible use of urban spaces and properties across neighbourhoods: Cities could promote diverse use of buildings and public spaces to derive maximum value from the infrastructure and boost community engagement.^"

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Please prove  "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." This is just more of your massively false wholesale villifications.. 

Please prove that climate change denialists claim the climatological community are being alarmist. This is just more of your massively false wholesale vilifications.. 

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

What do Connda's questions have do to with your assertion that 

"You will not be made to cower & comply to it. They will just make sure that everything they do not want hoi-polloi to have. like big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot will just become incredibly unaffordable.

You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

Because this is how social engineering is typically done. 

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

And of course it's disingenuous not to acknowledge that this question is based on a misinterpretation of the 15 minute city concept. As you may recall the the topic was named by Connda as:

"Do you support "15 minute cities" in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?" And just by coincidence his 2nd questions cites the same 15 minutes?

Both questions are pretty clueless, actually. Basically the second question could be characterized as "What if something meant what it doesn't mean?"

Why even propose a baseless dystopian question? That belongs in the fiction forum if there is one.

Why are you telling me? 

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

And how exactly would this policy reward the rich at the expense of the poor? Owning a car and paying for fuel is very expensive The less disposable income one has, the more of a burden they are.. If people with low incomes could walk or bicycle to do their shopping, they'd save a lot of money. And middle class folk could make do with one car instea of two. With less traffic congestion public transport would be far more reliable. How does this not benefit the poor? 

And until electric cars become predominant. there are major health benefits of autos not spewing pollution in neighborhoods.

So the policies will actually be help the poor/non-rich by making it too expensive for them to own cars or homes with a yard, yes?  that the rich (and of course the party elites) would no longer have to wait in traffic, and are able to have even bigger homes would just be a coincidence? 

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

And by what process of reasoning did you come up with 

"You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

Is that not the end game? If not, what is?

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

And why would a 15 minute city make "big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot...incredibly unaffordable"? What's the economic or financial connection?.

Because the only way people will agree to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have all their stuff delivered, and only read and see what's approved is if it's all they can afford. 

 

Again, please post up the "real" plan and we'll have a look.

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Please prove that climate change denialists claim the climatological community are being alarmist. This is just more of your massively false wholesale vilifications.. 

Well, for one thing here's your absolutist clam:

 I think it's funny that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist. 

 

And then there's articles from the Heartland Insitute, the belly of the beast,  It's at the very center of denialsm and figures hugely in the movement

 

"Heartland's conventions of climate change doubters are one of the things the institute is largely known for, according to the Los Angeles Times.^[26] Between 2008 and 2019 the institute has organized thirteen International Conferences on Climate Change, bringing together hundreds of global warming deniers.^[52][53]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute}

 

Here's an incomplete of articles published by the the Heartland Institute:

https://heartland.org/opinion/cop27-will-loss-and-damage-extremism-kill-national-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-posing-as-science-education-for-children/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-silly-science-of-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-crafty-language-of-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-versus-integrity-at-national-academies-of-science/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-is-now-a-real-economic-threat-to-the-us/

https://heartland.org/opinion/matt-gaetzs-green-real-deal-is-big-government-economy-killing-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/press-release-trump-sets-record-straight-on-california-fires-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-role-harassment-plays-in-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/heartland-weekly-rebutting-climate-alarmism-in-san-francisco/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-is-still-bizarre-dogmatic-intolerant/

https://heartland.org/opinion/we-must-not-give-up-the-fight-against-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/avalanches-of-global-warming-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/renounce-climate-alarmism/

 

You notice a word that's common to the headlines of all these articles?

Now it's your turn to prove "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." This is just more of your massively false wholesale villifications.. 

 

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Because this is how social engineering is typically done. 

Please share with what countries the following is typically done:

"You will not be made to cower & comply to it. They will just make sure that everything they do not want hoi-polloi to have. like big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot will just become incredibly unaffordable.

You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

As for this:

"Is that not the end game? If not, what is?"

Share with some evidence that this is the end of the game. Just asserting that it's so doesn't qualify as evidence.

 

[placeholder]

 

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So the policies will actually be help the poor/non-rich by making it too expensive for them to own cars or homes with a yard, yes?  that the rich (and of course the party elites) would no longer have to wait in traffic, and are able to have even bigger homes would just be a coincidence? 

Why would the program make it too expensive for the "the poor/non-rich by making it too expensive for them to own cars or homes with a yard, yes?"

You have offered no explanation of how that works.

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, for one thing here's your absolutist clam:

 I think it's funny that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist. 

 

And then there's articles from the Heartland Insitute, the belly of the beast,  It's at the very center of denialsm and figures hugely in the movement

 

"Heartland's conventions of climate change doubters are one of the things the institute is largely known for, according to the Los Angeles Times.^[26] Between 2008 and 2019 the institute has organized thirteen International Conferences on Climate Change, bringing together hundreds of global warming deniers.^[52][53]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute}

 

Here's an incomplete of articles published by the the Heartland Institute:

https://heartland.org/opinion/cop27-will-loss-and-damage-extremism-kill-national-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-posing-as-science-education-for-children/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-silly-science-of-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-crafty-language-of-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-versus-integrity-at-national-academies-of-science/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-is-now-a-real-economic-threat-to-the-us/

https://heartland.org/opinion/matt-gaetzs-green-real-deal-is-big-government-economy-killing-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/press-release-trump-sets-record-straight-on-california-fires-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-role-harassment-plays-in-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/heartland-weekly-rebutting-climate-alarmism-in-san-francisco/

https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-alarmism-is-still-bizarre-dogmatic-intolerant/

https://heartland.org/opinion/we-must-not-give-up-the-fight-against-climate-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/avalanches-of-global-warming-alarmism/

https://heartland.org/opinion/renounce-climate-alarmism/

 

You notice a word that's common to the headlines of all these articles?

Heartland? 

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Now it's your turn to prove "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." This is just more of your massively false wholesale villifications.. 

 

calling out denialists

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please share with what countries the following is typically done:

"You will not be made to cower & comply to it. They will just make sure that everything they do not want hoi-polloi to have. like big homes, cars, carports yards, pets and whatnot will just become incredibly unaffordable.

You need to be stuffed in a tiny apartment, work from home, have your stuff delivered, and only read and see what they approve."

As for this:

"Is that not the end game? If not, what is?"

Share with some evidence that this is the end of the game. Just asserting that it's so doesn't qualify as evidence.

 

Did you not understand the question? Again, if living in a tiny apartment, working from home, having your stuff delivered, and only seeing and reading what's approved is not the end game, what is the end game?

 

You claim it's not the plan, but you're refused to show what the plan is. 

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Why would the program make it too expensive for the "the poor/non-rich by making it too expensive for them to own cars or homes with a yard, yes?"

You have offered no explanation of how that works.

How what works, social engineering? If you want fewer cars, make cars unaffordable. If you want people to live in apartments, make single family homes unaffordable. 

 

You seem relatively bright, I am surprised you don't know this stuff. 

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Heartland? 

calling out denialists

A search term is not evidence. Give me evidence that "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." 

[placeholder]

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did you not understand the question? Again, if living in a tiny apartment, working from home, having your stuff delivered, and only seeing and reading what's approved is not the end game, what is the end game?

 

You claim it's not the plan, but you're refused to show what the plan is. 

You made an assertion that something is the plan. It's up to you to prove that's the plan. It's not incumbent upon me to disprove it.

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How what works, social engineering? If you want fewer cars, make cars unaffordable. If you want people to live in apartments, make single family homes unaffordable. 

 

You seem relatively bright, I am surprised you don't know this stuff. 

Or you can have encourage people not to buy cars or a second car by making them unnecessary. So people could actually save money. And I saw nothing in the question about apartment living vs single home living. And if they have less expense on automobiles, whiich is usually a drain on income, they'll have more to spend on shelter.

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did you not understand the question? Again, if living in a tiny apartment, working from home, having your stuff delivered, and only seeing and reading what's approved is not the end game, what is the end game?

 

You claim it's not the plan, but you're refused to show what the plan is. 

Once again you make an assertion and then tell me that it's incumben upon me to disprove it. That's not the way it works. You make a claim, you back it up.

[ozimoron]

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

What are retired, longer living people supposed to do ?

 

Been retired for 23 yrs.   TH is too small for me, but I'm too lazy to explore elsewhere.  It would literally be suicidal, if I had to hang out in the same 5 kms or even 100 kms radius for 20+ yrs.

 

THAT'S NUTS

It is nuts but on the bright side, nobody credible ever claimed that we should be that restricted. On the other hand, we should drive electric cars as you do to alleviate the problem. The environmental downside of batteries will be solved soon. 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A search term is not evidence. Give me evidence that "that the alarmists, call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist." 

Sorry, I'll rephrase: The alarmists I encounter all call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist.

 

We good now? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I'll rephrase: The alarmists I encounter all call anyone that questions any policy, regulation, program, mandate or subsidy regardless of how ridiculous it is a denialist.

 

We good now? 

You're alleged personal experience is useless. It's not independently confirmable.

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You made an assertion that something is the plan. It's up to you to prove that's the plan. It's not incumbent upon me to disprove it.

Per the OP, the plan as I understand includes "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence..."

 

You claim it's not the plan, but you have refused over and over to provided another plan. 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Per the OP, the plan as I understand includes "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence..."

 

You claim it's not the plan, but you have refused over and over to provided another plan. 

 

 

 

What's that got to do with whether you live in an apartment or freestanding home?