VaderTower t1_je72vki wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Looking for work by Longwell2020

Yeah the equation all changes. If part time either expect to be paid less than a full time counterpart to offset the cost per hour of your health insurance, or just pay for it out of pocket.

Say your premium is $500/mo or whatever. At 40hr/wk that's $2.88/hr additional an employer is compensating. At 30hr/wk that's $3.84/hr. At 20hr/wk that's $5.75 more. At 15hr/wk that's $7.70 more.


VaderTower t1_jbmjda8 wrote

I think most of us wanted to be early adopters but it's taken years to build out. We're what 2-3 years down the road and half the city still doesn't have it?

I would've loved to get this at $65/mo 2 years ago, but here I am still waiting and now I'll get the honor of paying $100/mo?



VaderTower t1_jbmivo5 wrote

Honest question, is traffic really an issue many people face in town?

Like I get it if you're travelling home to Nixa at 5pm. But I've lived here many many years in all different parts of Springfield and I've never had to deal with more than 15 minutes by car.

Compared to major cities around us, STL KC, our traffic just isn't that bad, in my opinion.


VaderTower t1_jak1dfo wrote

In theory I love this idea and have proposed this to many people.

Problem is how do you get deliveries to the businesses if you block both their front and back streets? Now you have to deliver and hand truck everything a block and you'd just have delivery trucks idling around that outside.


VaderTower t1_ja4z9ci wrote

Valid point, ultimately we live on a line between individual freedoms and societal benefit.

One is not good for the other. On one hand, I pay taxes on my property and everything I buy, that's a negative to my individual freedom of owning my land myself. However society wins because I won't voluntarily pay my fair share for the roads otherwise.

In this case, it's a shot at this guy's individual freedom, but because the city has deemed this as a high enough societal benefit that it outweighs the individual freedoms this man has to this land.

We absolutely disagree, and that's okay. This is the dialogue that is absolutely necessary so that the government doesn't steamroll everyone into submission. In this case I think it's justified, but I wouldn't say it is in every case.


VaderTower t1_ja4m17h wrote

Nothing, people just think any use of eminent domain is the gubment taking their land.

I'm all for the little guy in some eminent domain cases. But honestly this was just a guy running a haunted house 1 out of 12 months a year. The building is basically boarded up because of that, and closed the rest of the year.

The place looks like shit and having a rough looking haunted house in the middle of the future park would be stupid.


VaderTower t1_ja4llem wrote

Funny thing is the guys other buildings he owns down there street are in much worse shape than the hotel of terror.

Mind you he bought them shitty, he just hasn't ever done anything to clean any of them up.

If you ask me, he bought them cheap ( I know that for a fact), and my speculation is that he holds onto them long enough to turn a nice profit.


VaderTower t1_j9u615r wrote

The city has done a lot with Cristi. They've even set up a whole procedure for police to call the one cal number to have volunteers come out and assist homeless encampments 24-48 hours before they are removed.

Springfield isn't Greene county. The Sheriff is only controlled by the voters of Greene county. The Springfield city council and mayor have absolutely 100% no control over what the Sheriff does, and would be out of line if they started telling him what he should or could be doing.

Does the sheriff suck? Yup. But we continue to vote him in every few years.

As for how to solve homelessness. You're right we do need those measures in place, the problem as always, is we need to figure out how to pay for them. Either you take money from another program, or you tax the city/county. The city doesn't just have coffers of cash, like almost all organizations they run pretty budget neutral, as they should.


VaderTower t1_j9pvmbf wrote

Yeah I saw the smouldering video. I agree it was burned but by who?

And I read the article, sounds like the department just doesn't share with that paper because they have a grudge.

Again I think all of this is plausible but I'm not ready to hang anyone yet.


VaderTower t1_j9ml0ab wrote

Yeah as stated previously, I think we're all ready with pitchforks if it turns out to be true, and on one hand many of us won't be surprised.

That being said, we do need some more evidence unfortunately. While eyewitness testimony should be enough, it's just not in this case.

If proven correct, this has national news written all over it.