Where Relocation Begins

 

     We decided on a small-ish apartment in downtown Bellingham on State Street. The rent is nearly half of what we would have been paying if we had stayed in Seattle. 

     Perhaps the strangest part of this dislocation/relocation is a socially sanctioned mechanism called EDRA, created by the Seattle city council in 2022. It stands for Economic Displacement Relocation Assistance. 

     What it amounts to is that we were paid by the city via our landlord to leave Seattle. It has been determined by the powers-that-be that we should be paid for the anguish and disruption this has caused us---to the tune of $7,000. (I guess they figured that a monthly rent times three would cover the majority of costs.)

     But let me tell you, after living and rooting myself in a city for 42 years, I no longer believe there is any amount of money that adequately recompenses my husband and I for the loss of proximity to our friends and family---the most cherished people in our lives. 

     Such is the world we live in, that every event must, at some point, be related to a dollar figure. It is how we have all been taught to think. And make no mistake about it----

     THIS HUMAN THINKS IT SUCKS. 

     Let's face it. At heart I am simply not a capitalist. There you have it. 

     There may be a happy ending to this story, but that has yet to be determined.

Housing Crisis Hits Home in Unexpected Ways

     

              SURPRISE! I'M BAAAAAACK! Sorry, no more craft cocktails, no more face masks. But you could say the masks are coming OFF! 

               What follows is the story of our search for housing that fits our needs and budget. It has been a rude wake-up to the reality of the housing crisis. Of course, it is only a crisis if you are the one living through the process of dealing with it. Those already making payments on mortgages with rates below 6% already have that well behind them. But those days are long gone.

                In nine years of living in our apartment we have seen the rent double. A couple years earlier, we knew the time was coming when we’d have to start looking for other places to live. In August 2022 we made three consecutive offers on apartments at the same condominium association where some friends of ours live. It would have been great to be so close. Someone else always got the nod. We decided to give that effort a rest.

                My husband was still working and we had some time to think about it. By December the next year with employment suddenly ended, we had to reignite the work of finding a new place to live. The latest rent increase was going to be 20%, and to buy ourselves some time we extended the lease to June 2024. We had never had a difficult time finding another place to live, but 2024 is a very different year.

                Now that we were on the cusp of retirement, we decided to cast a net wider than the Seattle area. We looked at the offerings from the north end of suburban Seattle to Bellingham. (That included Everett, Mt Vernon, La Conner, etc.) The PNW feels like home to us since we’ve been in Seattle for 42 years. I focused the scope of my search along the I-5 corridor. I looked at senior housing, and places offering the infamous LIHTC program. More on that later.

                In previous years we had considered Bellingham as a good choice for relocation when the time was right. As I scoured the offerings across all types of housing, I learned first-hand about the limitations of what is available under the rubric of “affordable housing.” For example, I was informed by Whatcom county housing authority:

                Unfortunately, as a married couple, your household is only eligible for our 1-bedroom waitlists which I suspect is why you were rejected.  When a 1-bedroom waitlist opens, you will have to log back in to your online portal account and resubmit your application to each waitlist while it is open.

                I couldn’t let this go, so I asked again to make sure I understood the basis of their reasoning.

                Recently, we put in an application on an open waitlist but were rejected because we were requesting a two-bedroom apartment. I just want to clarify this point. Is it true that HUD will not allow a married couple/household to be eligible for a two-bedroom apartment? Is that true for every property that uses your program?

                This is correct; a married couple according to our policy would be allocated at the most a 1 bedroom voucher or unit as determined by the program applied for. Should there be a medical need for an extra bedroom we of course can work with you to verify this and accommodate as needed, this would apply to all of our programs administered.

                In fact, according to HUD rules, a married couple is considered “over housed” if they were to be granted a two bedroom apartment. (I wonder if snoring is considered a medical need for another bedroom. ?  😂 )

                I lurched forward in my quest and checked in with a local Seattle community land trust. It offers a model for housing that I have often admired. But wait, not so fast.

                They had a townhome available for purchase at an amount I felt we could afford. We offered them a 36% down payment in order that our monthly payments on a mortgage would more likely be within our means. They wanted eligible households to have an annual income of at least $69,000. I was hoping that with a larger down payment we could offset that to accommodate our reduced income. We technically had enough funds to purchase it outright. But they were adamant about their requirements and rejected our application. I have to say that was a shock. We had to prove possession of every penny we owned. They would have seen that even with reduced income from paychecks, we had enough access to cash to make it work. Apparently, they didn’t think so. This is when my head explodes if I think too much about this particular scenario. We suspected that we didn’t fit their criteria for reasons having nothing to do with sources of money. Maybe two people together don’t qualify as a family.

            Getting shagged by SHAG

                The last straw was when we got on a waiting list for an apartment in Bothell at a SHAG location called Boulevard Place. SHAG = sustainable housing for ageless generations. Cute, huh? We were told in December of last year that it could take up to six months for an apartment to become available. That is, within the tax credit program reserved for about twenty percent of their units. Then in March there was an opening and we began the lengthy paperwork process once again for the LIHTC program. This stands for Low Income Housing Tax Credit. It is administered by the Washington Housing Finance Commission. And as you can imagine, its rules are stringent.

                We were confident that our situation would clearly fit within their stipulations for being below 60% of AMI (area median income). I work part-time and my husband’s income from unemployment for the allotted six months would not put us over the limit. We presented our documents in-person and were soon told that we made too much money. The first words out of my mouth were:

                “That’s not possible.”

                Weak justifications ensued. But what we soon came to understand, much to our disbelief, was this: When an unemployment claim is opened, it is considered as such for a year. Even though the payments to the recipient stop at the end of six months, the claim lingers in an “open” status. So the idea is that there could be circumstances that cause funding or job acquisition to occur.

                This is how it was put to us:

                The guidelines of the LIHTC program indicate we are to calculate 52 weeks of unemployment if the individual is currently receiving unemployment benefits, which he appears to be based on the letter he provided from the ESD.  An unemployment claim is considered open for an entire year (52 weeks) even though benefits are only paid for 26 weeks.

We had a very similar situation recently and I confirmed with WSHFC (the monitoring agency) that we are to still to include the entire 52 weeks of benefits.

I know this is hard for our applicants to understand but it is the rule under the LIHTC program.

If they do not meet the qualifications with including 52 weeks of unemployment, then they are not eligible for a tax credit unit.

                We were told we could consider a market rate apartment. We said our good-byes.

            Bellingham or bust

                No more would we consult the charts for income limit restrictions at various points along the spectrum of AMI. We would have to work within market rates and hope for the best. We looked online. We set up appointments. We spent a couple days in Bellingham and did a few walk-throughs. And as the fates twisted, we found ourselves juggling two offers! We’ve already said yes to one, but we will go back and look at the other before deciding where to land.

                The story is not over yet, but ….

                Wait for the next installment.

**   On another topic: If you review previous posts, you will notice grey boxes where once I had links to the books I mentioned on Amazon. Well, Amazon decided to disable these references because obviously they weren't driving any traffic to the books!!! So my blog gets the grey box treatment where a functional piece of code once existed. I refuse to apologize for corporate bad behavior. I have very little readership, but I do love books. It's not my fault no one clicks through to the corporate overlords! 

 

Tips and Tricks for Staying at Home

In these times of the constantly shifting social experiment, my household has discovered a few things to make life a little sweeter. I can't promise this is the path to the easy button, but you'll have to read on and decide for yourself.

All this staying at home business has led me to try out a few ideas in the way of making cocktails. This is not my usual area of expertise. Using just what I knew we had on hand I came up with a new cocktail recipe that I have dubbed:

the Marcella

It goes like this:

1 1/2 oz. vodka
3/4 oz. triple sec
the juice of half a lime
3 dashes of old fashion bitters (I used Fee Brothers brand.)

Pour over ice.

I originally made it without the bitters and it was just OK, but the addition of bitters improved my perception of it as libation I actually wanted to drink.

I suppose you could substitute gin for the vodka and rename it for yourself. Why not?

Next up, a foolproof carpet stain remover technique. Years ago I consulted a book by Linda Cobb, the queen of clean. So I am here to tell you her advice really works.

You only need two ingredients: club soda and shaving cream. Who knew, right? Use as minimal an amount of the shaving cream as seems necessary for the job and don't scrimp on the clear bubbly stuff. Dab, dab, and only a slight agitation from rubbing, and with patience and many circular motions you will probably find that many stains will come out using this technique. I used it on an old white wine stain, on bone-colored carpet.

Lest you think I'm a boozer....well, what's the point of talking you out of that opinion. Never mind.

In the meantime, contemplate the awesome power of our beautiful planet as you sip your special beverage. Here is a hummingbird nest in our spruce tree. She visits us on a regular basis, and we like to think she is at peace with her choice of home and the humans with whom she shares the environs.

Take care, be well, and I'll see you as we emerge from our cocoons. ~~MVO

A Breath of Sea Air

Way north of my city, in the upper reaches of the Salish Sea is Hornby Island. I have never been there, but I hear it is a magical place. Here the great cycles are recorded. This video is a wonderful revelation to us urban dwellers who so rarely have the opportunity to witness the immensity of the natural world.

Orlov revisited

In my last review, I didn't include some salient points about the Orlov book that should at least be mentioned as they pertain to how his thesis holds together.

I skipped over chapter four, but it is crucial in understanding what he refers to in the harm/benefit analysis. If the power and control of the technosphere is to be diminished, he suggests that we need to hold as our standard the health of the BIOSPHERE.

But allow me to digress here a bit. Back on page 67, or there about, I read some passages that I can't get out of my mind. It is not that I remember them verbatim, but that I remember the essence of their meaning, and that is what has left a lasting chill.

Part of the control that the technosphere wields in getting people to adhere to certain beliefs, and thus behaviors, is the idea that we are becoming (or have already become) a global culture. This implies that as we think and act we follow along ever more converging paths of socially accepted behavior. Social media, for example, nearly demands it. If you have the courage to speak your mind, are you waiting to be struck by someone else's observation that you have not followed in line with the accepted world view that is now part of the popular meme? (I have often found this to be true, and as such deleted my Facebook account, for all the good it will do me!)

We have left behind centuries of previous forms of social organization that gave our lives definition and meaning. We understood our place in society through the boundaries of family, tribe, folklore, geographical location, city-state, nation-state, etc. Now, it seems we are swimming in a soup of humanity that is held together with the perfidy of imposed ideas. This is most evident when examining the vitriol that comes in response to political correctness.

In order to be inclusive of others our language use and behavior needs to conform to ever morphing sets of criteria. The intention is to acknowledge and correct a previous expression of prejudice or dismissiveness of individuals defined by the groups to which they belong. But by trying to erase the boundaries of these groups, regardless of how they are named, we are effectively asking others to join in where they may not want to go.

Not everyone wants to be identified with humanity as a whole. And so what you get is an ocean of identity politics and all the folks are clamoring to stake their claim in the please-acknowledge-me-I-matter territory.

I do not place myself on the political spectrum anywhere near the right end, and yet, I despise political correctness as much as any of those torch-bearers. And that is where the chill sets in.

If you have that many people in your society feeling dispossessed, underappreciated, unrecognized, and thwarted in their attempts at self-actualization, stirring the soup with platitudes of inclusion is not going to achieve your aims.

If we want to create a society that values the lives of all its participants, we cannot afford to ignore the fears and insecurities of those who bellow and scream obscenities. This is a horrifying realization. We are all guilty of writing off those who we are convinced will never listen to us, and that brings us up to NOW.

If we don't start bringing down the walls between us, the technosphere will continue to perpetrate its memes in order to conglomerate us and denigrate self-definition by any other means than the perceived, acceptable one. What we have lost in the meantime is any definition of basic, essential humanity--the idea that love confers value on all. That's it. Not language, not policy, not coercion. We need a vision of what love is, so we can know what it is like to extend it for ourselves as well as others. Our society, through capitalism, and other features, blinds us to the possibilities that matter most. Can we ever believe that the only possibility that matters is love??

💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓

Critical Thinkers Need Apply: A look at Orlov

If you go searching for works that answer interesting and urgent questions, you may be most rewarded by the writing of Dmitry Orlov. But I will warn you, don't expect a comforting narrative laced with platitudes or pablum. You are not in that territory.

In his book, Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a grip on the technologies that limit our autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, Orlov taps into the zeitgeist like a needle biopsy and shows you the cultural molecular structure in new and disturbing ways. The aim of his book is to discuss the ways in which our civilization has become enslaved by the new, technologically advanced, more efficient methods in which we conduct our daily lives.

By page 70 you may be thinking: This is beginning to sound like one very elaborate, but well-argued conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, it is challenging to dismiss the author's reasoning behind the layers of control wrested from our direct influence. For example, these are the characteristics of our state of adherence to the demands of the technosphere:

• it overcomes its natural limits, (conquest of nature)
• wants to control absolutely everything
• technologize everything
• put a monetary value on everything
• demands homogeneity
• wants to dominate the biosphere
• controls you for its own purposes
• demands blind faith in progress

Any of this sound familiar? Its only alternative to infinite progress is the apocalypse. It always creates more problems than it solves. 

Reading this book sheds some very discomfiting light on the degree to which our society is structured around ever increasingly demanding technological involvement. Orlov develops his narrative from many varying layers of historical and cultural analysis. In chapter three he references Ted Kaczynski, a cultural critic of some very prescient acumen. Had he turned his fervor to something other than bombing people, alas, he might have made a convincing revolutionary.

Chapter four is the harm/benefit analysis. I admit I got lost in this section. But his most fascinating illustration of how people can inhabit their world using nature-like technologies is in chapter five. Here he brings his observations to a personal level. Having grown up in Russia in the 60s and 70s, he experienced wilderness and homesteading in a way few North Americans would relate. Especially interesting was his description of the Russian stove and what it would look like to survive in Siberia using essential skills with tools for hunting, fishing, building, gathering. You get the idea. 

Chapter six addresses the need for restructuring society so that we do not, in fact, further destroy the biosphere. It takes a look at the ways in which we live under the parasite load of what he calls bad political technologies. These are structures that enrich, empower and protect special interests and privileged elites at the expense of the rest of society. They set the stage for injustice, exploitation, poor social outcomes, economic stagnation, mass violence, civil war and eventual political disintegration. Their forms of control are found in: 

• the medical industry
• higher education
• prison-industrial complex
• automotive industry
• agribusiness
• financial
• organized religion
• the legal system

So how do we shift to using good political technologies? We need ones that work to improve everyone's welfare, and build on previous successes to increase social cohesion and solidarity. While Orlov's work may not have answers, it is still a mighty provocateur's playbook. It will give you more than enough for reflection when he specifically points to recent attempts at regime change across the globe. Also, he is not one to shy away from taking a position. (p. 182)

"Nonviolence is nothing more than a tactic. It can even be used to promote violence by rendering a population defenseless in the face of aggression, in order to provoke a massacre and then use it for political aims, as was done by Gandhi, who preached nonviolence to Hindus, profiting politically when they were then massacred by moslems."

If you get this far and are still fence sitting, chapter seven will elucidate the milieu even further. Here he talks about social machines described as: (p. 189)

"...a form of organization that subordinates the will of the participants to an explicit, written set of rules, that is controlled based on objective, measurable criteria, and that excludes, to the largest extent possible, individual judgment, intuition and independent spontaneous action."

Ouch. I think I've been in that room before! The author doesn't pretend that extracting ourselves from these strictures of society will be painless, but I do appreciate that he reminds the reader of the flimsy premise underlying so much of our social glue (for lack of a better term). (p. 201)

"As society degenerates, social machines degenerate with it, and in spite of all the efforts at surveillance and automation, people find ways to survive. And if this requires throwing some monkey wrenches into the works, then more and more people will start doing just that. At some point it will become evident to all that most of the social machines have become so degraded that they are mere relics--empty shells maintained for the sake of appearances--while all of the decisions are made outside of them by actual humans applying their individual judgment to situations to which no written rules need apply."

The last two chapters, Wresting Control, and The Great Transition, offer ways of examining one's own life for clues of escape. Orlov, himself, has decided that living on a boat has provided him an acceptable level of freedom.

So dear reader, 2019 has most definitely been the year of I'd-rather-not-think-about-it books, but think we must, and I am grateful for the folks who have written the books of my last three reviews. They are brave and clear-headed individuals, the kind that I would like to figure into my Dunbar number. (Don't know this reference? Read the book!) As always....looking for my tribe. Ciao.

Discovering People from whom I want to hear more

I just discovered Nancy Neithercut.

I already love her and here is potent proof why: