Sorry...had the same problem you did, prairiemoon. Here's a clean version: I've decided to make one last effort to acquaint you with the significance of economics in understanding the world around you and distinguishing between effective and ineffective solutions to society's many problems. But before I do that, let me first acknowledge that perhaps my efforts thus far reflect my limitations in clearly communicating my points. For example, when referencing Karl Marx, I was NOT intending to disparage you by labeling you a communist or inferring that you supported his views. Rather, I was trying to make the point that many times an apparently sensible principle such as those espoused by Mr. Marx (or you) can prove to be totally dysfunctional in practice as explained by economic principles. But I'd like to walk you through a specific example of the application of microeconomics (i.e., the application of economics on a small scale, as distinguished from macroeconomics which looks at issues affecting, say, the national economy). Here in California, we've had our share of droughts in the past and we were experiencing a particularly prolonged drought when I was in business school. People were being forced to cut their water usage by 20% or face stiff fines. We were being required to only water our lawns on alternate days. "Water police" were issuing citations when landscape runoff was found in the street. Because of the drought, we were told, there was simply not enough water to go around. My econ professor used the occasion to make a strong point about the importance of understanding economics. He proclaimed, "Our current water shortage has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought!" What??? How could that be??? Economics tells us that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through a market exchange, where the price of a given good or service is determined by the price that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. Such a system GUARANTEES that the supply of a given good or service will always be sufficient to meet the demand (except for very short-term, unanticipated distribution problems, such as supplying drinking water immediately following the Haitian earthquake or introducing virtually ANY new Apple product). So how could CA be experiencing a water shortage? Very simple. The Public Utilities Commission was unwilling to allow the price for water to be set by the marketplace. Their reasoning was paved with good intentions (as is the proverbial road to Hell). They didn't want the burden of a decreased supply of water to fall disproportionately on those least able to pay for it. And, after all, isn't water a necessity of life? Yet each of their "solutions" created its own set of problems. Restricting landscape irrigation placed a disproportionate burden on those with large properties while apartment residents could continue to take half-hour showers. Requiring a reduction in water usage from the prior year disproportionately punished those who had always conserved water and those who had recently put in a yard. And these regulations did NOTHING to increase the supply of water. If instead they had let the price of water rise to a level that reflected its scarcity, the demand for water would be brought into equilibrium with supply. Consumers would have reduced their consumption in response to the higher price (as occurred during last year's spike in gas prices) and there would have been adequate water for all those willing to buy it. But wait, you say...what about fairness? Is it fair that the poor, who may be least prepared to deal with an increase in water prices, assume such a disproportionate hit? Well, the poor already have to pay for all the other necessities of life: food, shelter, transportation, heating, etc. Why should water be any different? (And to restate a previous remark, a ten-fold increase in water prices would still mean less than $10/YEAR to stay alive.) Our free market system works because it forces those who would be satisfied with only the necessities of life to get off their duffs and contribute to society...or they'll starve, freeze, etc. (Thank God for Clinton putting an end to Johnson's ill-conceived War on Poverty, which expanded the ranks for the impoverished and nearly bankrupted the nation.) If we feel that some are UNABLE to provide for themselves, we can (and do) establish welfare programs, charities, homeless shelters, etc. to help them deal with the price of necessities. But using PRICE to allocate scarce resources gives each individual the freedom to make decisions on how he/she would prefer to allocate their scarce dollars. But even more important, price provides the capacity for us to actually increase a dwindling supply by providing an economic justification to drill new wells, import water from areas having an abundant supply, expand water conservation technology, build desalinization plants, plant xeriscape landscapes, etc. And unlike wishing and hoping that citizens would simply act on the need for conservation by being RESPONSIBLE, a market allocation of scarce resources ACTUALLY WORKS! But couldn't a group of evil rich meanies corner the market on water, driving the price higher to satisfy their own greed? Sure, that could happen. And that's where government has a role in preventing the manipulation of the marketplace and the creation of monopolies. It takes vigilance to keep markets free. A good example of our government's failure to do so is in allowing China's currency manipulation to capture a disproportionate share of the American market. Why aren't we more aggressive in stopping this? Because China buys off our politicians by purchasing Treasury bonds which enables them to finance their on-going deficit spending. Oops...sorry, I'm slipping into macroeconomics and politics. That's a much more involved lesson. Market solutions aren't perfect but, as Churchill said about democracy, "...the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Of course, he also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." He might well have been referencing their ignorance of economics!) Dr. Granfield likely would be rather disappointed with the superficial job I've just done in recreating his lesson on CA's water shortage but I hope it's given you a flavor of some of the considerations in looking at society's challenges through the lens of economics. Any questions?

"Overall, I am concerned that this plan doesn't really reflect what a large family might need on a farm. I don't see space for a large chest freezer, or a utility shower by the garage (or whichever door would be the main entrance from working outside.) The workshop seems very inadequate unless there's another freestanding workshop. You don't have good cross-ventilation in the house, so it may get stuffy." Okay, please talk to me about what would be needed for better cross-ventilation! I don't want a stuffy house. As far as a chest freezer, that would go either in the mudroom upstairs, or, more likely, in the downstairs laundry/utility room. Utility shower--DH and I originally had a shower off of the mudroom, and actually removed it. Dh really feels he does not need it. He does get dusty at times, and his boots can get muddy depending on the season, but those get left outside. Never have I known him to come home covered in mud or anything like that. If he did need to do a little washing up before going downstairs, he can do so in the sink. I guess I am just trusting his judgment on that one. We haven't had a utility shower up until this point and he says he hasn't missed it. He says he would like to shower and dress in one place--in the master suite. Lastly, workshop--that little area is just for bikes, bats, balls, etc. The farm has 19 outbuildings total and they will be building a new shop in the next 2-4 years, so workshop space is not a concern, hee hee! "You've got a playroom and closet on the ground that can be used as a bedroom in the event someone gets injured or you have an aging relative visiting, but I think you also at least need a shower on the ground floor. Even if it's in the garage! I do think you need one more bathroom. Many families get by without more than one or two, but they aren't building a custom home." Point definitely taken. We've planned that if needed, we will remodel the large mudroom to include a 3/4 attached bathroom, if we have need to turn that room into a bedroom one day. I kind of addressed the utility shower thing above, but I, too, was concerned about the lack of a second "family bath" downstairs. When we decided to excavate a full basement beneath the garage office and include a guest suite, that alleviated my fears, since it will include a full bath that can be used by our kids anytime a guest is not in the house. When we have guests, I am sure we'll manage for a short period of time with two full baths. Also, since my husband is self-employed and we plan to homeschool our kids through high school, we can avoid some of the early-morning bathroom bottleneck that occurs with families who are trying to leave out the door at the same time daily. "The stairs feature prominently in the entrance, but when guests come in the front door, it doesn't lead to areas you usually want them to go. I think the stairs should be accessible from the family areas." Do you have a suggestion of where you might locate the stairs if you were in our shoes? Maybe you'd just be tossing the plan altogether. Sometimes I feel like doing just that!!! I do think we're going to be flipping the entry closet with the powder room, and then scooting over the double door all the way, so that you open the door into the hallway instead of the stairs. Do you think that will help? "If you widen the pantry by at least another 6", you'll have room for shelves on each side which will dramatically increase your linear wall storage capacity for not much more square footage." I LOVE this idea! I am going to do ask for that to be changed. I can easily give up 6" of great room space without being bothered. "I agree with bigkahuna about the closet space, especially in the master. At a minimum you could have closet storage on the left and using the space under the stairs, with the bath on the right." On our little car trip today I brought some graph paper and played around a little. I couldn't come up with anything I really loved! I am not married to the master bedroom floorplan right now at ALL, but I think I will need some direction in how to change it! If anyone wants to play with a plan, go for it! Otherwise I guess I will talk with our designer this week and see if he can suggest something better. "If you plan on having more kids, a small room adjacent to the master will help in the early years and can be used as a sitting room later." We actually co-sleep until around a year old, so for our family we won't need this. I love the idea in theory, though! "Having said all the bad stuff... To make room for the extra closets and stuff downstairs, you could make those bedrooms an smidgen smaller and the master really doesn't need to be that long. If you are planning on encouraging the country lifestyle where life is lived outside, small bedrooms won't be an issue for the kids. I think your laundry/utility room might be a little larger than it needs to be, too. You could steal a foot or two in width and then would have room for two bathrooms." Can you clarify a little more on what you would suggest doing to increase closet space? We may end up doubling some kids up in bedrooms, so I don't want to go too small, but you can never have too much closet space. "I don't understand the pocket door in the mudroom. It's the only pocket door in the house, so it seems out of place." I am not in love with it myself. I think I'll request for it to be changed to a normal door. The pocket design is actually a remnant from a previous mudroom plan, and kind of just got left in there for no reason. "If you leave the stairs where they are, a single front door plus sidelights would give you a little more breathing room in the front foyer." If we scoot the double doors over all the way to the left wall, I think this will be eliminated or at least helped. Additionally, DH and I talked about it, and we'd like to talk to our GC about what it would require cost-wise for us to push out the entry a couple feet. It's already excavated underneath, so there will be trusses there anyway--why not, right? So we'll see what he says on that one. "The elevation looks like it might be a little odd. I think I would set the columns to flank the door. Right now the front of the house, the door and the columns are all on different spacing and I think it will look disordered instead of deliberate." Yep, that is just a boo-boo in the version of the plans I have. It will be centered. "For your virtual hallway, you could consider a strip of stone or tile. It would help absorb some of the damage from dirty boots and such in a way that a wood floor would not." You are so right, but at the same time, we are planning on all hardwoods, so it might look awkward to have one floating strip of tile, don't you think? Also, we are a sockfoot family when indoors, so anyone who walks into the house with dirty shoes will incur mama's wrath!!! :) "Have you considered moving the kitchen to the center? You could still have it open to either side, but this would leave room for a dining table on one side and the family area on the other. For large gatherings, it's nice to have different spaces. Without them, everyone ends up sitting in the circle in the same large room while grandpa can't hear what people are saying on the other side and the kids are totally uncomfortable. You you'll have 3 distinct areas (dining, LR, GR) with the kitchen in the heart of things. If you build that dining area more like a large eat-in kitchen, you could still have the deck off to the side and the same feel." I really LOVE this idea in theory. Help me out a bit. How would you design the kitchen? It seems like it would just have one wall and an island? I am worried that won't be enough cabinet space for me. Unless, of course, you create a wall, but then we lose the open concept, which I really would like to keep. Also, when you come into the entry, wouldn't you see right into the kitchen? I want to avoid that if possible! Right now you look into the dining area/table, and there is a wall behind the stairs blocking the kitchen. I don't want my baking shenanigans to be the first thing a guest dropping by would see! If you have a smart design idea on this one, send it my way, because I definitely am intrigued by this idea. "Okay, I'll shut up now." Please don't; you have been very helpful!

Our city engineer has reluctantly OK'd these plans. On paper, he can't prove that the plan wouldn't work. The city is always afraid of being sued. Last ditch effort is to see if the Building Review Board can nix the project. However, the only portion of their charter that obtains here is that a proposed building 'fit the site'. (I think the plan should fail on that point. There may be a style that would work -- a contemporary on pilings? -- but this plan tries to alter the site to fit the building plans.) Is anyone familiar with this kind of proposed foundation/water-retention facility? I hoped that a forum member who lives near a waterway might have heard of this. The lot owner's engineers claim this will *improve* the flooding along the waterway! At the last BRB meeting city staff recommended the lot owner legally assume responsibility for damages. That's nice, but I can't see how he could make whole all the homeowners affected if we all flood. We'd all have to sue, etc., etc. Big mess. I wonder what the lot owner REALLY wants. Maybe he could 'donate' the lot to the city, which would then officially declare it what it IS, a wetland, not buildable. The owner could stop paying RE tax and possibly qualify for a charitable deduction. The city wouldn't have to DO anything with the land except leave it alone. Meanwhile...how to keep kicking this can down the road until it goes away?

I have purchased a number of older homes, and this sounds like par for the course for me. All this "money pit" and "walk away" stuff is perplexing. If you want a new home, then get one. If you want one from 1960, it is going to have systems near the end of their lives and some items to repair. Anything already disclosed or already visually obvious is off the table. No Seller is going to rebuild the deck for you, or replace a roof that is not leaking. You are buying what you see. The only reason for inspection is to reveal unknown issues you will have to deal with in the future. I'd ask for repair of the electrical issues because those can be safety issues. Then evaluate the cost of a new roof and a new deck, compare that with the cost of a similar house in perfect new repair, and ask for some reasonable dollar amount or amount off the purchase price. If you cannot afford to repair these items, think twice about an older home.