I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:  his dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

First and foremost, we must acknowledge that the Word of God is perfect and infallible.  It is also settled forever in heaven.  It will not contradict itself.

These passages refer to the Second Coming of Christ.

Matthew 24:30

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:  and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with all power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7-8

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.  Even so, Amen.

I am Alpha and Omega (Strong’s 5598), the beginning (Strong’s 746) and the ending (Strong’s 5056), saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (Strong’s 3841).

When the Bible refers to the Son of man, it does not refer to the deity of Christ.  Had these references meant deity, it would have said Son of God.  These references also show another remarkable thing.  God had to manifest (reveal) himself in the flesh of Jesus Christ in order to become sin for humanity in order to shed His blood for us.  Being made sin for us, He was forsaken, as God cannot fellowship with sin.  Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.  God is spirit.  Spirit has not flesh or blood.  Therefore, the one we see coming in the clouds is the glorified Christ, the risen Savior.  But, that glorified Christ is not another Lord.  It is the same one Lord who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  He is the Almighty.

Daniel 7:9 describes the Ancient of days.

“…whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool…”

Revelation 1:14 describes Jesus Christ, the Son of man.

“His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire”

So, Jesus Christ is also called the Ancient of days.  Each verse referring to the Ancient of days refers to the one that would bring judgment.

Revelation 19:11-16

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a  vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations:  and he shall rule them with a rod of iron:  and he treadeth the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of the Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

In summary, every symbolic name in Daniel 7 speaks of Jesus either as the Almighty God (deity), or as the man Christ Jesus who shed His blood for humanity.  It does not speak of two separate and distinct beings, but two roles.

An activist of the Communist Youth Organization alongside women’s right movement Femen gestures as she protests topless outside the Tunisian embassy in Stockholm on April 4, 2013.(JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)

Below is an article reprinted in its entirety from http://www.policymic.com/articles/30856/amina-tyler-tunisian-girl-outrages-islamic-authority-with-nude-facebook-photos

You can read more articles on the FEMEN support of Tyler, including coverage of the April 4th protests which were dubbed a “topless jihad” at our sister blog: http://sluts4socialism.wordpress.com.

Amina Tyler: Tunisian Girl Outrages Islamic Authority With Nude Facebook Photos

Explain to me again the point of picketing funerals. Is it like boycotting death? I feel like WBC missed a very important part of the picket… its function isn’t just to write random words and hope someone points a camera at you. Just wanting attention and being as asshat to get it: That’s called a tantrum.

Westboro Baptist Church Pickets Roger ‘F@g Enabler’ Ebert’s Funeral (VIDEO)

 

Roger Ebert. Photo from Entertainment Weekly.

According to Jeff McMahon from Forbes magazine, Ebert was America’s “greatest movie reviewer,”

Not because he cared about movies, not because he told us what to think about movies, but because he told us just enough to care and to think for ourselves.

Fans and well-wishers are invited to send donations to the Ebert Foundation, c/o Northern Trust at 50 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603. In addition, a memorial tribute will be held tonight at the Chicago Theater (for more information, click here).

***As fans mourn the passing of celebrated film critic Roger Ebert, Westboro Baptist Church is once again putting the “fun” in “funeral.” According to the Hollywood Reporter, the vehemently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church sent out a press release yesterday announcing their plans to picket Ebert’s funeral because, “God hates f@g-enablers.”

Apparently the folks at Westboro didn’t like it when Ebert tweeted a link to Jeff Chu’s Salon article, “My Day At Westboro Baptist: ‘Yes Jesus hates you,‘ back on March 25th while he was still alive:

Chu is a gay Christian writer, and the author of “Does Jesus Really Love Me?: A Gay Christian’s Pilgrimage in Search of God in America.” Ebert’s tweet read: “Just another day at Westboro Baptist.http://dld.bz/cs74b.” The Topeka, KS-based Westboro Baptist Church is known for hating gays (theirWeb site URL says God hates them, too) and for protesting at the funerals of thousands of gay advocates, public figures, members of the military, and others with the misfortune to run afoul of them. According to their Web site, they have disrespected the dead at 50,197 funerals so far.

Ebert was a beloved American journalist, film critic, and writer who had been living with cancer of the thyroid glands since 2002, and passed away at age 70 on April 4th, 2013. He and his dearly departed colleague, Gene Siskel, pioneered movie reviews for the modern age starting in 1986 with the thumbs up/thumbs down format of their long-running At The Movies television series. His funeral was held this morning, April 8th, at Holy Names Cathedral in Chicago, IL.

Since the folks at Westboro are equal opportunity haters, their press release refers to this Catholic church as “PREISTS [sic] RAPE BOYS,” and further twist the knife of their contempt by misspelling the word “priests.” Either that, or they’re just no good at spelling.

***

The Chicago Tribune also reported that as the funeral procession solemnly marched up the main aisle of Holy Name Cathedral, the choir sang, ”God has smiled on me, he has set me free.” If the folks from Westboro Baptist Church could hear the lyrics as they shivered outside in the freezing rain, they surely would have been gnashing their teeth. The full text from Westboro’s hateful press release reads as follows:

GOD HATES F-G ENABLER ROGER EBERT!

LORD WILLING, WBC TO PICKET IN LAWFUL PROXIMITY TO THE FUNERAL OF F-G ENABLER ROGER EBERT AT “PREISTS RAPE BOYS” HOLY NAME CATHEDRAL (730 N. STATE STREET, CHICAGO, IL), MONDAY, APRIL 8, FROM 9:15-10:00 AM

For 22 years Westboro has warned the people of Topeka, Kansas & America that the policies of sin of this land have brought the wrath of God upon you, your houses, your city, your state, & your nation. American entertainment industry publicity leech Roger Ebert took to Twitterverse to mock the faithful servants of God at Westboro Baptist Church, just days before he received the horrifying summons: “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: [now] whose shall [that silly vanity called a Pulitzer Prize] be, which thou has provided?” (Luke 12:20) This fool sold his soul for some fame & fortune, forgetting that God has made a simple declaration regarding His people: “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” (Psalms 105:15). Now the famed critic is in a new jurisdiction, where he can see the blessings poured out on God’s humble servants in heaven, from his seat of eternal torment & sorrow in Hell! It’s too late for the fool Roger Ebert! WBC will continue to bind those who still live in Doomed america to God’s eternal laws & Word, so you, like Roger, are without excuse!

Elisabeth Parker is a writer, Web designer, mom, political junkie, and dilettante. Come visit her at ElisabethParker.Com, “like” her on facebook, “friend” her on facebook, follow her on Twitter, or check out her Pinterestboards. For more Addicting Info articles by Elisabeth, click here.

 

Sections of Ms. Parker’s article are reprinted here without permission. To read it in entirety and original context, go to http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/08/westboro-baptist-church-picket-roger-eberts_funeral/

No where else in “traditional business” can you start a business for $25-$500 and create a $3000-$10,000 per month income with in a year (depending on the affiliate offer)

Because lets look at a traditional business like Mcdonalds…

You’d think because they’re on every single street corner that the guys owning them are raking in the cash. But thats not exactly true, especially in the beginning.

It costs a few million dollars to actually start a Mcdonald’s and you’ll spend about 3-5 years paying that back. Plus you are physically at the business for more hours than a traditional job, taking away from what is most important, time with God and your family.

So that means you aren’t really going to be profitable for 3-5 years. Sounds like a lot of fun huh? lol.  I left a job that took me away from my family for months at a time, for a lower paying job just so I could be home, but there is a way to have the time with them and make the money to take care of them too.

With affiliate marketing, you can start being profitable almost immediately. I mean, when I started in my business I have my first $100 and $500 sale in my first week and then my first $1000 sale in my second week which was freakin awesome!

Now I’m not saying that EVERY single person will make that kind of money from affiliate marketing.

Some people make no money. But if you take the extra time out right now, you can.

From my experience, its been the most successful when you get around the right PEOPLE who actually have results who are helping you.

And its not just 1 guy who had success 5 years ago lol. Its when average people, all across the board, are having success.

Thats the kind of company that you want to look at   Click on the banner at the top of this page and you can learn more.  If you have already done that and are signed up, then click below to get the right kind of coaching to get on the fast track.  Be all in, and change your life, so you can have the time with God and your family that we all long for, join me, and I will help you every step of the way.

May God bless you and your family,

Andrew

http://www.empowernetwork.com/jaelliott/

Transparency,collage of text/photograph and line on Flickr.

In my last post I discussed the importance of researching the topic of Creation. Although you can be a Christian and be an evolutionist (or otherwise known as a ‘progressive creationist’, in case you wanted to know) there are many contradictions in that mixed faith that will lead the Christian away from what he believes. So I would highly advise you read it before you go on because it lays the foundation for all I am about to say on this topic.

 So have you read it yet?

Are you sure?

Really, really sure?

OK then! Our topic today is Lucy, the Ape-Man (well, Ape-Woman) and those inexplicable ‘Missing Links.’

Let’s dive into what missing links are first and then move on after that.

Now you have probably heard about Missing Links before, but do you truly know what that means? Many people believe that it is the link in between man and ape, probably something like Lucy. However, ‘Missing Links’ are non-found gaps in between many animals. As John D. Morris, a PhD and founder of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) agrees,

“Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the “missing link,” the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree.” ¹

So again missing links are non-found gaps in between many animals which is against Gen 1:21,

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

This is important because there is a problem now, not only with the links between man and ape (as we will show later), but also on much grander scale as it takes out one of the biggest foundations of evolution. As you will remember, evolution as a whole, is the idea that through mutations from one animal to the other after millions of year’s one animal can become another animal. So if I can prove to you that the mutations of the animal to the other are incorrect, I have taken out a component factor of evolution. So as for disproving missing links…

HANG ON A MINUTE!!!

Before we go any further I need you to understand the concept of ‘Scientific Proof’. When someone says something has been ‘Scientifically Proven’ this does not, under any circumstances, mean that this is 100% correct. Most people think it does. Instead, it means it is 99.555% correct. What do I mean by that? I mean that to the extent of our knowledge it is correct. However it can be utterly dis-proven by one, small, simple error that destroys the proof, called a ‘counter-example.’ So I am here just to lay the facts, the 99.555% scientific ‘proof.’ Now with that in mind, back to disproving missing links with facts…

Let’s begin by looking at probably the most famous missing link of all, Lucy. Lucy is considered to be THE link between ape and man. It’s all over the textbooks, media, and more. Well, I believe that Lucy is a total misconception. So, is Lucy fact or is she fiction? I have included this audio clip because I believe it gives a more factual picture about Lucy than what the media tell us. This exert is taken from a presentation by Dr. Jobe Martin who is a DMD, and a ThM.  He is the author of ‘Evolution of a Creationist’ a book on how he went from being an Evolutionist, to believing in Creation. He also has a mini-series called ‘Creatures That Defy Evolution’ along with other items. Dr. Martin examines a NOVA Science Video in this clip. Here is the NOVA transcript.

If you listened closely, you noticed that Owen Lovejoy tinkered with the bones of Lucy because he thought he was fixing them as was noted by Nova. You see, Lucy is simply a chimpanzee. (P.S here’s a fast video YouTube clip of the pelvic bones fitting together) Also, I want you to realize that Lucy was not only tinkered with on the hips, but most of the body as well. Look at this picture for example.

Personal photo from a visit to Museum of Earth History, Dallas TX

Take a guess at which color represents the added parts of the fossil on this replica, white or gray? The answer actually white! You might be thinking this is pretty weird. But the truth is that Lucy has actually been reconstructed with additional, non-existent parts so it can be used to prove Darwin’s Theory…finally. But knowing the FACTS, instead you understand she’s most likely just a chimp.

In conclusion, the three major topics we discussed in this post were:

• What is a missing link?
• The concept of scientific proof
• Is Lucy fact or fiction?

I hope you understand these topics better and will join me in my next post as we take a deeper look into God’s amazing creation.

Starting with one, small, simple, verse, Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”

citations. ¹ Morris, J. 2006. What’s a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).

I’m a teenager.  Yes, a hormonally imbalanced, highly emotional, havoc wreaking, teenager.  Guilty as charged.

Now, as most know, teenagers are in a paradoxical (It’s a word.  Look it up.) stage of life.  We can now think and act for ourselves, but are still restrained by the loving and necessary chains of our parents’ guidance.  We become headstrong, yet are easily swayed by the opinions of those around us.  We are, in essence, impressionably stubborn.

So, as I begin this trek through the blog world, I hope to document my life as an impressionably stubborn individual.  My ideas and their influences (or lack thereof) will be fully disclosed as I continue my adventure through our beautiful world.  Who will this teenager become, you may ask.  Well, only time can tell.

Let’s see where this journey takes us.

Is Microhousing Really Something New?

Some individuals maintain that microhousing is just the latest reincarnation of the boarding house or congregate residence, housing types which they allege have been around forever. However, if that assertion is true, why has the City struggled so with the permitting of these buildings. Even Dianne Sugimura, Director of the Department of Planning and Development,  stated, in a letter to concerned Eastlake neighbors:

[T]his is a nontraditional housing type, but one which we’ve been seeing more in recent times.

A DPD reviewer for one project stated in an October 11, 2011 correction notice:

[A]s you may know, boarding houses are something we have recently been seeing more of, and without the code being written to directly address them, the Department has been in the process of figuring out how best to apply the code requirements to boarding houses.

A proposed rule drafted by senior DPD staff also noted:

The difficulty of distinguishing a single-family dwelling from a boarding house during the plan review process and the diverging definitions and purposes of land use and building codes means that many times the building might be classified as a boarding house for building code purposes and as a single-family residence for land-use purposes, causing confusion for applicants, staff and the general public.

That’s an excellent summary of the situation. Even Seattle developers, who are generally very sharp individuals, had difficulty navigating the permit process. On May 13, 2011, Chip Kouba, of Ecco Design Inc., who stated he had been working with Dirk and Gary Mulhair and Jim Potter on a number of boarding house projects, developing the product as they went, wrote to Roberta Baker of the DPD seeking clarification on a land-use issue. The question was:

[O]n a current project all land-use and structural and ordinance requirements appear to allow us to build a five story building with a basement with vertical congregate residences from basement to roof.… In the past, for a number of reasons, we ended up in townhouse territory, however believe that by definition these would not be included in that definition. If you could address this question, or advise on how best to review this with DPD would greatly appreciate it!

The argument that microhousing/boarding houses are nothing new does not hold water.

A Thicket of Definitions

Not long after I began my research, I became lost in a thicket of definitions. There are definitions for dwelling units in Director’s Rule 7-83, which I will discuss in greater detail shortly, in the Seattle Municipal Code, and the Seattle Building Code. And they don’t all say the same thing….. The Seattle Municipal Code contains definitions for townhouses, townhouse developments, and duplex. Definitions of household and household unit were found in the Seattle Municipal Code: family was defined in Director’s Rule 7-83 and the Land Use Code at the time the Rule was created. Congregate residence was defined in the Seattle Municipal Code, while congregate living facilities and boarding house were defined in the Seattle Building Code.

Finding my way out of this thicket was not made any easier by the fact that the permit for each project contains an area for project description, a column for a brief description of the occupancy group ( as defined in the Building Code) and the occupancy type, and a column for a brief description of the approved land use. Here are three examples of  project descriptions that provide you with a little sense of the creativity involved: (1) Construct South Duplex Townhouse. Establish use as multifamily structures and construct two new triplex structure and one new duplex; (2) Construct 5-unit boarding house. Establish use as 5-unit townhouse and SFR; (3) R-3 Townhouse Boarding House. Approved land uses  for buildings which, in many cases, look a lot alike, were given variously as: multifamily residence or structure, congregate residence, single family dwelling, Some of the projects included, restaurants, offices and live/work spaces.

An astounding admission by the DPD

Three DPD staffers I spoke with, two of them senior staffers, stated: “Look, we understand, these are basically apartments.” While their forthrightness was refreshing, it would have been nice if it had had a greater impact in policy discussions at the DPD.

What is the Permitting/Approval Process for Microhousing? It depends…..

On who you talk to. I decided that I needed to talk to the land use coaches. Surely, they of all people, could clearly and succinctly explain the process for permitting a microhousing project, as well as the governing codes. And so I entered the next thicket. Clear, comprehensive, consistent explanations were in short supply.

Director’s Rule 7-83: How to Use an Outdated Rule Creatively

When I first started investigating this area, I was told by DPD staff that I would not find authorization or documents governing the construction of the aPODments or microhousing in the Seattle codes: it was explained to me that the construction was based on a Code interpretation from the DPD, Director’s Rule 7 – 83. This was also the Rule that Dianne Sugimura cited in her letters to concerned neighborhoods. After obtaining a copy of the Rule, whose subject is “Determining the Existence of a Dwelling Unit for the Purpose of Code Enforcement”, I wondered how a rule for the purpose of enforcement came to be used for the purpose of permitting.  In the last couple months, I spoke with three land use coaches who suggested that what I wanted to look at in terms of construction of microhousing was Director’s Rule 7 – 83. But if one looks at the permitting and planning documents related to the construction of individual microhousing projects, one finds references to the Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical and Fire Codes and a new Director’s Rule 6-2012, which Rule none of the land use coaches had bothered to mention to me. In a memo which I recently saw, the DPD maintains “currently DPD considers microhousing legal under building code provisions for boarding house or congregate housing; and legal through the land-use code-applying applicable zoning rules for building form and scale.” This is incredibly vague, with no references to specific code provisions provided, and it is difficult to believe, seeing the final products that they comply with zoning rules for building forms and scale. Indeed, one of the chief characteristics of the projects is the number of departures they have requested from building scale, modulation, environmental and safety regulations.

Concerned Neighbors Petition the DPD

Concern in the Central District

In early 2011, Bill Zosel, a well-known neighborhood activist on Capitol Hill and in the Central District, wrote to the DPD expressing his “concern regarding a recently issued building permit for a six story building at 433 11th Avenue. Diane Sugimura, Director of the DPD responded to his letter on May 16, 2011. Sugimura noted Zosel’s observation that, although “the project had been advertised in the Daily Journal of Commerce as a 56 unit building, that it had not been required to go through the Design Review process that most buildings of this size are subject to.” She recognized his having “noted the DPD Director’s Rule 7-83 attempts to define when a room  or group of rooms would be considered a dwelling unit”, and stated that the “rule cites a list of factors that may contribute to the determination that a separate dwelling unit exists….” A copy of Director’s Rule 7-83, can be found here. Sugimura related that she had reviewed the plans for the building and that they showed 56 bedrooms, each with their own bathroom, as well as “7 common kitchen areas to be used in a shared [emphasis mine] fashion by the residents of these rooms, that is 8 bedrooms per kitchen.” She stated:

“To date, this type of development concept is not common and is not specifically defined in our code.”

She then proceeded to explain, given the novelty of the development concept, how the DPD had treated such projects:

For units that have 8 or fewer bedrooms, we have treated these as  apartment units or townhomes that happen to have multiple bedrooms. [NOTE: The Land Use Code does not limit the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit, but does limit the number of unrelated individuals in a household, which is 8.] In other instances they have been treated as congregate residences, when containing 9 or more bedrooms.

Returning to Zosel’s original concern that the project had not been subject to Design Review, Sugimura explained how the DPD handled such development projects.

Our  current code language for determining whether Design Review applies is based on dwelling units, and we do not have distinct language that points to how to treat a congregate residence for the purposes of Design Review so we’ve relied on the definition that a congregate residence is a single dwelling unit, though there may be several congregate units in s single structure.

Sugimura closed her response by expressing appreciation for Zosel’s inquiry, and relating that the DPD had “recently had a few questions about this type of development  from applicants as well as from neighbors,” and stating that the DPD would continue to monitor this type of development.

Concern in the Eastlake Neighborhood

On July 17, 2012, a group from the Eastlake neighborhood, Count Units Properly Please, wrote to Diane Sugimura and Naomi Henry, a zoning analyst, regarding a development being planned at 2371 Franklin Avenue East.

The neighbors requested the DPD to count the number of units as 39, rather than the 5 dwelling units represented by the plans for the project. Director’s Rule 7-83 lists a number of factors to be considered in determining whether a room is defined as a “dwelling unit”, and the neighbors, citing some of those factors,  argued that the areas in the proposed project met the definition of “dwelling unit” under DR 7-83, as well as that found in Seattle Municipal Code 23.84A.008 “D”. They also noted that “boarding house”, which was one of the descriptions of the project in the DPD’s online database was not found anywhere in the Land Use Code. In the event the DPD remained uncertain, the neighbors urged them to contact the project developer to obtain further information, a list of which was provided by the neighbors, on the project before DPD granted a permit. The neighbors alleged that the project developers had characterized the project as a 5 dwelling unit project in order to fall below the thresholds for SEPA and Design Review, which are processes designed to allow public input and conditioning by the DPD on projects “not adequately addressed by Land Use standards and other development regulations.” They further argued that the increased density, which had not previously been contemplated for the neighborhood, would “significantly impact” private and public properties and uses, as well as public infrastructures and services. They closed by requesting a meeting at the earliest convenience of the DPD. A copy of the letter can be found here.

The letter discussed immediately above had been preceded by a letter regarding the same project from Chris Leman of the Eastlake Community Council on June 28, 2012, according to a reply to Leman sent by Sugimura. The letter addressed seven issues Leman had raised in his letter. For our purposes, the most significant section, was her response to Leman’s request that she “[p]lease explain the basis and conclusions of your analysis in light of the 1983 Director’s Rule that provides directions on the features and characteristics that define a space as a unit.” Sugimura begins her response by stating a fact that is obvious from the front page of Director’s Rule 7-83: that it “attempts to clarify what is a dwelling unit for purposes of code enforcement.” She then observes that each “unit” in the Franklin Avenue project “has eight or fewer bedrooms, presumably non-related persons, and one food preparation area.” She then proceeds to provide definitions from the Land Use Code for “dwelling unit” and “household”. Sugimura then dismisses claims Leman had made suggesting that individuals living in a single dwelling unit, with each of them in a separately leasable unit did not constitute a household:

It is not appropriate for us to use the Land Use Code to attempt to regulate the nature of the relationships within a household, such as how chores and expenses are shared. A group of people may live together and still be individually responsible for their share of the rent, and make separate payments to the landlord. We do not believe that such an arrangement causes these people not to qualify as a ‘household’ or ‘housekeeping unit.’ We do not have the authority, or the resources, to police lease arrangements. Leases are not a required part of a permit application when we perform our project review.

She makes an interesting argument, but her argument, especially given that microhousing is not defined in the Land Use Code, and that the Land Use Code has not played a major part in the permitting of these projects seems to be beside the point, other than as a direct response to statements Leman may have made. Further the Land Use Code regulates, directly or indirectly, the nature of all sorts of relationships.

While leases may not be required by the DPD as a part of a permit application, they are required by the Office of Housing as part of the application for the Multifamily Tax Exemption – and the Office of Housing not only has the authority to require them, they, in fact, require them. I know: I have seen copies of the leases used for all the projects that have qualified for the multifamily tax exemption. So it seems a little cute for Sugimura to plead inability to find out what is contained in the leases for microhousing projects. If I can see them, surely Sugimura can. Her ignorance of them seems more a product of a lack of will than of an inability to obtain the information. But then, these separate leases are not convenient to the arguments she makes.

Continuing with her analysis, Sugimura states: “The presence of a kitchen is a key factor in determining whether a group of rooms qualifies as a dwelling unit.” After pointing out how this is considered a factor in definitions of a dwelling unit in both the Land Use Code, and Director’s Rule 7-83, she asserts that “the micro-unit project does not include separate full kitchens, and the occupants must cross through a shared common area in order to access the bedrooms.” Sugimura made the same statement in a response to James Jules of Count Units Properly Please. This last assertion was contradicted by Naomi Henry, who in response to a request from Sugimura, for comments on the draft of her letter to Leman, told Sugimura:

I think it sounds good. I made a few small changes to the third paragraph on page 2. Based on the current floor plan, the occupants won’t cross through the shared kitchen to access the bedrooms.

Let’s do a quick review of various statements that Sugimura has made. Firstly, she asserted that microhousing was a way of providing affordable housing without the need of a public subsidy, but then acknowledged my research showing that over 50% of the projects had applied for or received the multifamily tax exemption. Was this accidental? At the East District Neighborhood Council meeting, in her response to my revelation of this information, she replied: “Well, you got me.” Secondly, she and Richard Conlin claimed at the East District Council meeting in December 2012, that they had received no complaints about neighbors or these projects. Oh really? I guess Sugimura conveniently forgot the letters she received earlier in 2012 and in 2011 raising concerns about microhousing projects. Thirdly, a DPD staffer tells Sugimura that residents won’t cross through a shared kitchen to access the bedrooms, but Sugimura leaves a statement, in two letters to neighbors, that “occupants must cross through a shared common area to access the bedrooms.” Her statement should be contrasted with the statement in a draft Director’s Rule prepared by Rick Lupton, a Senior Land Use Planner:

The buildings are usually configured such that the hallways and stairs that serve the bedrooms are primarily routes to the outside, rather than to the common kitchen and living areas, providing privacy and independence to the resident.

Ms. Sugimura’s credibility with me is becoming a bit threadbare.

The DPD Recognized There Were Problems Long Before 2012: The Need for a New Rule

After relying on Director’s Rule 7 – 83 for a while, the DPD recognized the need for the creation of another rule. Within the DPD, a land-use forum was held on June 22, 2010, for the purpose of discussing dwelling units, in light of land use and building codes section 23.84A and Director’s Rule 7 – 83.

The issue for discussion was presented as follows:

Both in Single Family and Multifamily zones, we have been getting permit applications for dwelling units that contain numerous rooms, each with separate bathrooms. For purposes of the Land Use Code, we have sometimes concluded that a proposed arrangement constitutes a single dwelling unit, but based on the number of rooms and configuration, Building Code reviewers have been inclined to regulate the space as a ‘boarding house’ use, requiring certain improvements, such as sprinklers, that might not be required in a single dwelling unit. This requirement is based on life-safety concerns that may be more likely to arise when multiple rooms are separately rented and occupied by separate individuals. (Although the separate rentals might be inconsistent with treatment as a single dwelling unit under the Land Use Code as well, this is something that it is generally not feasible to enforce.) However, it creates confusion, [emphasis mine] for example, for a building to be regulated as a single-family residence for purposes of the Land Use Code but a boarding house for purposes of the Building Code. How can this be resolved?

A summary of the discussion noted:

Our current determinations for purposes of the Land Use Code are based on the definitions and Director’s Rule 7-83, and some amendments to the code and that rule may be needed if we were to change our practices. This would be a policy choice, and there may be some support for keeping our current practices, to the extent that it is seen as allowing provision of affordable housing. However, in the meanwhile a Director’s Rule could be adopted to require that the higher Building Code standards for a boarding house be met, even if the space is regulated as a single-family dwelling unit for purposes of the Land Use Code, based on factors such as the number of bedrooms, or bedrooms with separate bathrooms.

Out of this process, a new rule was proposed, as early as 2010, and possibly as early as 2009. The uncertainty arises from the fact that a draft of a new rule is entitled “Director’s Rule _-2010, Clarification of Requirements for R-3 Boarding Houses”, but the third page of the draft is headed “Director’s Rule 10-2009″. Could be just one of those Microsoft Word editing problems: someone forgot to change the header, but I don’t have a definite answer yet. The current Director’s Rule 10-2009 concerns Small Diameter Pipe Piles, so has nothing to do with microhousing.

On May 15 2011, Dianne Sugimura asked her assistant to schedule a meeting that week if possible. Ms. Sugimura observed that the Directors Rule 7 – 83 “Zosel referred to is definitely out of date, but has not been revised.” She also mentioned that she had reviewed the attached draft of the proposed boardinghouse directors rule_– 2010 titled Clarification of Requirements for R – 3 Boarding Houses that had apparently been prepared by Rick Lupton.

Information from the Draft Rule

The draft rule was divided into three main sections: background, purpose, and rule. The rule section was further divided into definitions, guidance on how to recognize a boarding house and building code clarifications. The Rule’s purpose was:

To provide guidance in distinguishing a single-family dwelling from a non-transient boarding house, for building code purposes, and to clarify how certain provisions of the Seattle Building Code apply to this small segment of boarding house residences.

A transient occupancy is occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days. (Seattle Building Code 310.2)

One of the chief problems to be addressed was the difficulty of identifying, during the permit review process, whether a building was a single-family dwelling unit or a boarding house. This difficulty arose because:

Interpretations of the Seattle Land Use Code consider residential buildings containing a single household as having no more than eight bedrooms as a single-family residence as long as the occupants are non-transient and there is no more than one rental agreement for the household. If the occupants are transient, the building is considered a lodging use. Where a household includes multiple parties having independent rental agreements, then the building may be considered a multi-family use.

This difficulty in distinguishing a single-family dwelling from a boarding house caused “confusion for applicants, staff and the general public.”

The reason why distinctions had been made between a “one family dwelling”, governed by the Seattle Residential Code, and boarding houses, which were governed by the Seattle Building Code was that residents of boarding houses, who lived more privately and independent of one another were subject to higher life and safety risks, because “each resident has less awareness of the activities and less committment to the well-being of other residents.” The Seattle Building Code addressed these vulnerabilities by imposing automatic sprinkler, exiting and accessibility requirements. Note that the theme of  separateness again arises as a chief motivating factor. Remember this, because underlying every issue as regards microhousing, are the themes of separateness and connectivity.

Given the way that new projects have been developed, you might wonder, as I did, why would anyone have a problem distinguishing a one to two story single-family residence from a 3-5 story boarding house. The answer to that question is to remember that at the early stages of microhousing, most of them did occur in one to two story buildings. Early Mulhair developments were chiefly of that type. Few types of this building had been permitted: one in 2007, 2 in 2008, 1 in 2009, and 2 in 2010. Different trends began to develop in early 2009 with the Mulhair aPODments at 212-216 23rd Avenue and Randal Spaan’s development in late 2010 at 310 17th Avenue.

The first portion of the Rule Section listed definitions from the Seattle Building Code for: boarding house, congregate living facilities, dwelling unit, sleeping unit, and transient.

The second portion of the Rule gave a list of characteristics of boarding houses:

• contain the maximum number or bedrooms permitted by the Land Use Code (8);
• individual bedrooms are served by a private bathroom, including tub and shower;
• sometimes had multiple living areas, with different names, such as living room, recreation room, etc.
• sometimes a wet bar and under counter refrigerator within the bedrooms. Microwaves and hotplates could be in the sleeping room, but if it contained a stove, it would be classified as a separate dwelling unit. (This item contained a reference to Director’s Rule 7-83 for the purpose of code enforcement.)
• the ratio of independent area to common area was high compared to a single-family residence
• the buildings are usually configured such that the hallways and stairs that serve the bedrooms are primarily routes to the outside, rather than to the common kitchen and living areas, providing privacy and independence to the resident.

Next came the information to guide the use of these characteristics:

Where a proposed dwelling unit has one or several of the characteristics listed, evidence of a boarding house shall be considered. If the dwelling is configured to give the residents an independence and privacy from other residents, then the ‘dwelling unit’ shall be considered a boarding house and subject to the [Seattle Building Code] and requirements below. These guidelines may also apply where a two-family dwelling or townhouse is proposed, each dwelling having the characteristics of a boarding house.

This guidance was then provided by a section listing Seattle Building Code provisions that would be applicable once it was determined that a unit was a boarding house. One of the most important was Seattle Building Code 310-1 R-3, which provided a list of R-3 occupancies. If you have been kind enough to stay with me this far, I am not going to burden you with an in-depth discussion of the other provisions. Further, this was just the warm-up for a Director’s Rule that was actually published.

Director’s Rule 6-2012

The subject of this Rule is like the title of a 17th century book: “Building, Mechanical and Energy Code Requirements for Boarding Houses having 8 or Fewer Bedrooms and Less the 2000 Square Feet of Floor Area.” The Rule was published on May 14, 2012, and became effective on June 8, 2012.

This Rule is far less generous with background information and consists chiefly of straightforward policy declarations and detailed requirements governing life-safety, egress (how to get in and out of a building), accessibility, energy, and mechanical. The definitions section is the same except that there is no longer a definition for congregate facilities, there is a new section on the scope of the Rule, and the list of boarding house characteristics is more succinct, and varies slightly from the list in the draft rule discussed above.

The purpose of the Rule was slightly modified to be that of clarifying

the distinction between a single family dwelling unit and boarding house for the prupose of applying the Seattle Building Code (SBC).

The main policy declarations with little background given for their justification were:

• When a  building is a boarding house under this rule, the boarding house shall be subject to the SBC and shall not be subject to the Seattle Residential Code.
• For SBC purposes, where the bedrooms are designed or configured as sleeping units and each resident is provided with a level of independence and privacy from other residents, the sleeping units may be considered as together forming a boarding house.
• Although the Land Use Code allows no more than nontransient and related persons to constitute a household, the Land Use Code does not control the application of the SBC or when a building is a boarding house under this rule.

I think it makes an interesting questions whether the DPD as an administrative unit of the government, and subject to the Mayor’s authority can make these types of sweeping policy declarations. Shouldn’t that be up to City Council as the legislative body in the City of Seattle.

Matters become most interesting when you look at the scope of the Rule. While earlier language states that the purpose of the Rule is to make boarding houses subject to the Seattle Building Code, the scope begins to introduce some wiggle room. Section A.1 of the scope section states:

This rule provides an alternate [emphasis mine] means of compliance with the SBC for proposed boarding houses having:

• 8 or fewer bedrooms;
• gross floor area of 2000 square feet or less; and
• one or more of the characteristics listed in Section C, Characteristics of a Boarding House.

Hmmmm, I am beginning to sense the fingerprints of project developers on this Rule.

Section A. 2 provides that:

When multiple boarding houses are proposed in a single structure, this Rule shall apply when it has the characteristics described in section A.1.

I find it interesting that the word “structure” is used rather than “building”, especially since building is used elsewhere in the Rule. A structure is simply that which is built or constructed (SBC 202). A building is ” any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.” The reason why I find this interesting is that many of the microhousing projects are being treated as having more than two dwelling units as evidenced by the building permits, yet are none the less, listed on the same permit as R-3 boarding houses. The only problem with that is the the Seattle Building Code clearly states that an R-3 building does not “contain more than two dwelling units.” DPD reviewers have even brought to the attention of a project developer by telling them “R-3 Occupancy is limited to two dwelling units per building. Confirm the 2-hour firewall that establishes a separate and distinct building allows for this classification.” Hmmm, now it seems that buildings can contain buildings if the firewalls are configured correctly. Seems to me like a rule made for the benefit of developers. It certainly does not reflect the common understanding of what a building is. Benefiting developers would be consistent with other portions of this Rule, which appear to enact as regulations, those items for which developers were usually required to justify a departure. I will discuss that more in-depth in another post.

Something else that heightens my suspicions about developer influence on what went into this Rule is that items that were considered characteristic of boarding houses, and made them subject to the draft Rule, are expressly declared to make them not subject to this Rule. The Final Rule states:

This rule shall not apply to boarding houses that include multiple living areas, such as living room, family room, recreation room, den , lounge, great room [this is a new item on the list], office, library, media room, game room, bonus room, sitting room, or storage room that are configured to be identical to rooms identified as bedrooms or are combined with a one or a pair of bedrooms or are combined with one or a pair of bedrooms to form a suite.

Could this possibly have been motivated by the fact  that microhousing developers have moved from providing kitchens as a common area in their projects to proposing projects with micro offices, live/work units, common rooms, storage rooms, great rooms (what a surprise to find that on the floor plans), lounge, living rooms, and sitting rooms? I sense the presence of Jim Potter and Randall Spaan, Luke. After a couple smaller posts, I will talk about the handful of developers and architects that are fueling the microhousing boom in Seattle.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I am exhausted by this march through the thickets. Let’s get out of here!

If you’d leave them unguarded

But you keep armed sentries on alert

To repel invaders such as me

Singing choruses of I’m not looking for a relationship

Which isn’t the first time I’ve heard that covered

You seem surprised

When others find you attractive

More than a little pissed off as you dance away

I would drown in your eyes

If you’d leave them unguarded

Since they leave me breathless anyway

David Trudel   ©  2013

Wiltshire! The mystical land that my husband hails from. It’s a rural English county that is mostly made of green velvet and gently glowing scenery. The natives decorate the rolling hills with white horses (see above) and sprinkle them with sheep.

Actually, pretty much all of the landscape looks like promotional posters for some a rural propaganda campaign:

COME TO THE COUNTRYSIDE. LOOK HOW HAPPY THE SHEEP ARE.

Wiltshire is the kindly West. It’s basically the Shire.

With abandoned tanks in it.

TANKS FOR STOPPING BY!

Which is kind of a contradiction, and one that interests me.

You see, the United Kingdom is a very small place. All of its history, all of its needs, all of its people and its potentials are crammed into very small geographical areas. The results are these odd, rich, isolated portions of land that are absolutely saturated with military history, natural history and meaning.

Salisbury Plain is its military training… bit. The UK is a small kingdom, but a big colonial enterprise, and all of that Plucky Underdog behavior in the world wars had to be backed with some kind of formal military training. An army of fully-grown James Bonds doesn’t just spring from the creases of Winston Churchill’s forehead, like a horde of grumpy Athenas, and swarm out into the world already trained and armed. The British had to practice dropping bombs and parachutes somewhere. Particularly when shit got real close to home during World War Two, when the crowded little island was in particular danger of invasion. Previously, British troops could train in their various worldwide colonial possessions, but that was becoming difficult what with all the ships being sunk and Europe being occupied and so on.

And Salisbury Plain was mostly just a big soft pile of green countryside. It made a lot of sense to take it over as plane-starting and parachute-practice territory – it would be a gentle landing, after all. So the British military moved into Wiltshire, where they remain to this day, owning nearly one hundred thousand acres of countryside. When you visit, you will probably pass a few tank crossings, helpfully marked with signs.

I love these signs: they are HILARIOUS.  They suggest to me that if I look out carefully, I might spot a Wild Tank lurking in the undergrowth, with a pair of baby tanks huddling at its side.

This is a tank habitat! Tanks may cross here! Do not feed them! Photo from bsktcase ‘s Flickr.

The tanks are active, though rarely seen. When I first visited England, I fell asleep in a soft bed to the gentle sound of nightingales and woke to the terrifying sounds of artillery bombardment. The military was practicing by shelling the local hillsides.

So that’s one striking contradiction: these militaristic symbols, these earth-shaking sounds; these quiet villages and ancient churches and gently conservative old people. It’s the equivalent of having a military fort in the middle of a prosperous, WASP-y Connecticut town.

Anyway, around World War Two, much of the Wiltshire area was devoted to the war effort. One particularly isolated settlement on Salisbury Plain was the village of Imber, a small rural community that nobody was going to miss very much. Most of the land around it had been systematically sold off to add to the growing military training grounds, but the villagers of Imber stuck it out in their tiny little community, refusing to move.

Then in 1943, shit was getting about as real as shit could get in wartime Britain. The Americans were finally wandering over to help out, but they needed to train for things like “hand-to-hand combat in European towns” – the farmboys from Kansas being noticeably lacking in narrow cobbled streets for such scenic fight scenes.

And here was this perfectly good model training village – and the only problem with using it for awesome choreographed fight sequences was the presence of the incumbent villagers. Apparently they did not mind living in a firing range, and continued going to the school, the church and the pub with healthy regularity.

In November 1943, the Imber villagers were called to a meeting and told that they had a little over a month to move out of their homes completely. They were evicted, and despite their numerous attempts to return over the years, they were never allowed to return. Most of the old homes were destroyed, from a gorgeous old rectory to a block of social housing that was only a few years old at the time. Only six of the original buildings now remain.

The village of Imber is empty now. It’s surrounded by military land, full of abandoned tanks and unexploded ordinance. The roads leading to it are all private, but they open for the public to visit on certain days. Not all of it belongs to the military – the village includes a church, which belongs, in the awkward way of certain British buildings, to mysterious higher powers. This church doggedly opens for public services on Christmas and Easter.

So this Easter, my in-laws and I trekked over to Imber to check out this famous ghost town.

I thought it would be a photogenic thing. Perhaps I would get some cool post-apocalyptic imagery for my blog.

Sadly, many of the buildings in Imber are these ugly fake ones, built in the 1970′s.

And there was a little bit of that.

Caution: Do not provoke the wild tanks. They will levitate your trucks.

But you’ll notice that it was also an incredibly warm, pretty day, with a deep blue sky and a brilliant sun. The colors popped. The birds twittered. It was the sparkliest combat training zone I’ve ever seen.

And the village HEAVED.

It was nearly impossible to take these pictures, because the whole place was buzzing with people in an official British Holiday Mood. Dozens of Grumpy British Fathers waved giant cameras at each other. Every time I lined up a picture, I was in the way of someone who was trying to line up their own shot. You had to stand in a queue to take a picture of the church.

I do love the way the graveyard is collapsing into disrepair.

It wasn’t a military post-apocalyptic landscape: it was a giant picnic. It was nearly impossible to find a parking spot, so people were just abandoning their cars at random, even though signs everywhere warned you not to leave the road. The lost village heaved with families and crawled with dogs. Everyone was shouting, calling, squealing, shrieking and barking at each other.

It looked like a very disorganized spontaneous dog show. Nervous greyhounds in fleece jackets. A distracted Borzoi. A Border collie, speculatively eyeing up a herd of shrieking toddlers as if assessing their herding potential. An Australian shepherd that was barking at everything, and a clutch of spaniels who were barking at the Australian shepherd. Terriers by the pound, wearing various tartan jumpers. A corgi puppy in a puffy pink coat. A mastiff, sniffing disinterestedly at a crumbling gravestone. A laborador being extracted from a coil of barbed wire. An escaped hound, trailing a leash and pursued by its family, tearing off happily across fields full of warning signs that read “DANGER: UNEXPLODED MILITARY DEBRIS.” I sincerely hoped that didn’t mean “land mines,” because I didn’t fancy being showered with dog-and-human soup.

And the people! And the children! Little girls in fancy Easter dresses, little boys in suits; a thousand children calling “MUMMY” in that uniquely irritating English way. Children bolting past “DANGER” signs to entangle themselves happily in barbed wire. Everyone seemed incredibly cheerful and happy as they poured into the Lost Village. They chattered and swarmed. They stood in line for the portable toilets. They waved walking sticks, binoculars, and hats. They erupted into arguments over which type of bird they had just spotted and pushed each other out of the way to get pictures of the exact same gravestone from multiple angles.

There is a social script that British people read from in these situations that I simply do not understand. They are operating on a fixed code of behavior that is remarkably consistent. While waiting for our husbands to emerge from the toilets, my mother-in-law and I stood next to a patch of ground that had been worn bare by the traffic. In the space of a few minutes, no less than five groups of middle-class old folks stopped and had the exact same conversation about it.

“Ooh, this patch is a bit bare. Do you think my shoes will be all right?” (This opening gambit was usually introduced by a matriarch in white leather courts.)

“Ooh, yes,” the rest of the family chorused, “it isn’t muddy at-all.”

“Oooh, no, it hasn’t rained for days.”

Then the family walked over the patch.

“Oooh, no, it’s very dry, it wasn’t muddy at-all.”

Next, the family that had been patiently waiting behind them approached the patch.

“Ooh, this patch is a bit bare. Do you think my shoes will be all right?”

I really need to get the playbook for these situations. I’m not doing it right; I’ve lived in England for a year and a half and I still can’t stop laughing when this happens.

We went into the church. It was strung with decorative lighting and crowded with information boards.  I shit you not: they were serving tea. And doing brisk business too, with a big generator producing vast urns of tea, and old women guarding plastic-wrapped plates of snacks. I was able to sneak a picture of this old man, who was selling his honey. I thought he was great.

Honey from the Lost Village – sounds like a new young adult book.

The basket of Cadbury Creme Eggs on the table to the left are the remains of the children’s Easter Egg hunt. I know that I keep saying “THE CHILDREN WERE PLAYING IN FIELDS SALTED WITH UNEXPLODED MILITARY ORDINANCE!!” as if it’s this crazy thing, when clearly everyone else was cool with it, but it really struck me forcibly at the time. Granted, there’s not THAT much damage you can do to yourself with a plain old live bullet, unless you systematically lick off all the lead, or hit it with a hammer. But something in me quailed at the idea of holding a children’s Easter Egg hunt in Imber. “Here, children, disperse into the military training zone and seek out the shiny things. When you find the shiny things, throw them at your siblings and/or put them in your mouth.”

HOW IS THIS NOT A TERRIBLE IDEA?

Because this is the Salisbury Plain.

THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL FUCKING PICNIC AREA.

OH NO WAIT, CLEARLY IT IS. STICK YOUR KIDS IN IT. Same house, same day, different angle. Photo from the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail was in Imber on the same day, and they tried to make sense of the matter, too.

The Ministry of Defense had promised the villagers of Imber that they would be able to return to their homes after WW2, but they were never allowed to. Many of them did not receive compensation for their flattened homes. Apparently the MOD has absolutely no interest in hearing their complaints about this. However, old residents of the village may be buried in their churchyard, and relatives may visit on public days; one flower-strewn grave was dated 2012. Many of the other graves were recently cleaned and decorated.

The church and the fenced churchyard would probably be a brilliant zombie-defense zone.

Although I was initially a bit disappointed, I quickly decided that I loved the contrast between the picnic atmosphere of Imber’s open day and its derelict militaristic appearance. There’s something charming about releasing swarms of children into an active military training zone. Crazy, but charming.

Imber is a few isolated, rotten old buildings on pale, winter-barren hills, but it is also a site of pilgrimage. It’s important to people. They want to take their children there. They want to be buried there. And when they get the chance, they like to see it, and bring their families, and eat sandwiches. It’s a ghost town, but it isn’t a dead village.

And the seemingly-empty hills of the Salisbury Plain hold more secrets, more contradictions.

Most of the land was portioned off to the MOD in the early 1900s, so it’s escaped the pressures of development and cultivation. And on this small island, nearly every inch of space is farmed and cultivated. The green and pleasant countryside is mostly edible. If there is a strip of grass at the side of a road, somebody will probably stick a sheep on it. Space is at a premium. If it can be intensively farmed or covered with housing developments, it usually will be.

But when you drive up to the more windswept, isolated, MOD-owned reaches of the Salisbury Plain, the countryside gets a little wilder than the rest of England. Sturdy cattle graze the lower slopes of the military zone (the English really can’t resist putting farm animals in empty spaces) but there are no tractors, no farm equipment, no power lines. There are barbed-wire fences and the occasional silhouette of a bombed-out tank. Here, there be dragons.

This is what passes for wilderness in England.

Salisbury Plain has been settled by humans for many thousands of years, but it became strictly military property before the advent of industrialized agriculture.

This produces a particularly beautiful paradox: Salisbury Plain is one of the richest, most unspoiled archaeological areas in the United Kingdom. You see, nothing chews up an archaeological site quite like machine plowing.

Well, maybe this guy.

The intense military training activities of the past century have seen the hills bombed, strafed and gnawed – torn up by tank treads, pummeled with shells and kicked by thousands of booted feet. This has all contributed to significant wear and tear on its archaeology… but it’s still been protected from plowing. It’s been protected from building. It hasn’t been mined, paved or excavated. In terms of its conservation, the Salisbury Plain is  described as “unparallelled in England.”Aerial images taken in 1924 show the remains of an ancient Romano-British settlement, complete with its pattern of streets….

From the English Heritage website: Charlton Down photographed 12-JAN-1924. Note the “D” shaped enclosure in the middle right that is still clearly visible 70 years later on the modern photograph (CCC 8627/03). © NMR Crown Copyright – Crawford collection.

In 1994, the same area was photographed:

From the same site: “Aerial photograph of the Central Impact Area of the Plain photographed 22-JUN-1994. In the right foreground is the major Romano-British settlement on Charlton Down that has spread out across the ‘Celtic’ field system [...] The small white spots are tank hulks, painted and used as artillery targets (NMR 15042/02). © Crown copyright. NMR.”

In August 2012, rehabiliting soldiers were tasked with excavating one significant Bronze Age burial mound on the Salisbury Plain, discovering the remains of twenty-seven soldiers, who were buried with treasures of amber and glass. (The authorities had decided to excavate the barrow because it was “under attack by badgers,” who were “chucking things out.”) It was a particularly notable mound in that it had belonged to a larger complex, but the others had been extensively damaged by farming (and presumably angry badgers.) So in a strange, unexpected way, the military presence has ended up preserving its own heritage. (And don’t worry: the “welfare of the badgers” is assured.)

This touching concern over the welfare of the badgers leads us seamlessly to another contradiction of the Salisbury Plain: wildlife.  One hillwalking site has termed it “Military Environmentalism.” With no farming, no development, and no plans for either, the plain has become a haven for wildlife.

Southern England used to be the home of a completely ridiculous bird called the Great Bustard, which has been extinct in the area for nearly 200 years. Here is a Great Bustard. His name is “Purple 5.”

YOU MAGNIFICENT BUSTARD. (Photo by Dave Kjaer)

Here are some facts about Great Bustards:

• Great Bustards one of the heaviest flying birds in the world, weighing 18-20 kg (~40 lbs).
• “The great buftard, though a very large bird, is exeffively timorous, and feems neither confcious of its ftrength, nor animated by the fpirit of exerting it.” (From the 1821 Encyclopaedia Londinensis — which also describes them as “daftardly.”)
• They have AMAZING MOUSTACHES.
  

  SO CLASSY!

• Their binomal name is Otis tarda, meaning “slow or deliberate bustard.”
• They take five years to reach sexual maturity.
• They can’t really be bothered with flying.
• They are delicious, and their eggs are delicious.
• They look like fat, angry dinosaurs.
• They tend to kill themselves by flying into power lines at very high speeds.
• “They do tend to wander, they give every impression of being lost.“

So clearly these awkward, awesome birds are not cut out for the fast-paced lifestyle of modern Britain, with its power lines and complicated Tube maps. They went extinct due to hunting (due to being delicious and adorable) but even if they hadn’t,  southern England has very little of the isolated, complication-free habitat that Great Bustards require.

Therefore, it was perfectly logical that the Great Bustards should be reintroduced to England by installing them on the Salisbury Plain. The birds were brought over from Russia and installed in “secret sites” within the military training area. At first, these unlikely phoenixes looked like they would promptly be eaten by foxes, when they weren’t accidentally wandering into France… but now the rehabilitation  seems to have worked! Free from poachers and power lines, the birds have re-oriented themselves are doing well and producing chicks.You can purchase piles of Great Bustard swag and even spot them on days when the MOD opens the area to the public. A March 2013 article in the Guardian states that the success of the project is based in the unspoiled nature of its new habitat: “The bird’s best boon [is] the natural paradise that is the military training area on Salisbury Plain.”

So this military training area is variously a lost-and-found village, a picnic area, an archaeological site, a natural paradise and a place to drop bombs. It’s a model fighting village in which the buildings were replaced with fake ones, but where the church still holds services. It’s a ghost town, a grave, and a place to learn to kill. It’s full of buried treasure, ancient streets, and birds reborn. It is shelled regularly and full of burned-out tanks, but there’s no better place in England to lay your eggs. It’s land stolen from poor villagers, but given graciously back to nature. It’s a high wild place picked over by kestrels, and it’s got human settlements right down to its bones. It’s a place where soldiers fight very important battles against badgers.

I think it’s a charming series of contradictions. And in following up on these paradoxes and contrasts, I found out more about the world around me: the land I live on now, the landscapes of my husband’s heart, my landing place.

We got another Freshly Pressed acclaim last week, so in the spirit of showing the newcomers what this blog is really about, we’re going to end with THIS:

THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY.

The music bump is “Keasbey Nights” by a band called, appropriately, Catch-22.

43 – Catch-22 – A Collection of Jokes With No Plot

A quick correction: The Perilous Gard is by Elizabeth Marie Pope, not Warren. Warren is actually the name of the family in the book.

1. Why do I buy heels I can’t walk in? I hate heels. I can’t walk like a normal person in heels. I KNOW I never wear them. Why!?

2. My room is never cleaner than it is in the week or two before I have assignments due. I procrastinate clean. Not sure if it’s a win or not…

3. I tell everyone I have good taste in music and love bands like Queen and Journey and all the hard core, authentic 80s stuff that gives me street cred., but actually mostly all I listen to is SAMSH and top 40s on repeat. I really do love Queen and Journey and stuff! really! But…SMASH…

4. I’d very much like to go out there and educate myself by reading and watching all the classics but someone wrote this thing called Harry Potter and then they made 8 movies of it and really I’d just like to watch and read that for the rest of ever.

5. Why do I always get sick during a show? sometimes twice? Why can’t I get sick just after a show? Or not at all? Nope, it’s at always the most inopportune time, right when I have to sing everyday.

6. I simultaneously want to move out and be my own superwoman person and also to never move out of my parents house ever. I can’t decide which option is more terrifying.

7. I love peanut butter but I hate peanuts. Figure that out.

8. I despise shopping but there really is nothing better than getting a pretty new dress.

9. Why do I pretend to be a dog person? I like cats. Most dogs annoy me after the first 10 minutes of pretending to like them. Also, they smell.

10. I hate people and I think they suck, but individuals can be super wonderful sometimes!

11. Getting to know someone new is exhausting and I think I suck at it. I’m a 0 to 20 person and very much wish I could know people really well instantly. It would save me time.

12. I tend to start talking to people like they know the back story of everything I’m talking about – which only ever leads to a very confused conversation partner.

Hello friends, looking at the amount of inconsistencies we pour in our minds everyday, it’s possible that some may end up in the mental hospital. Another piece of my artwork. Enjoy!

1. Why do I buy heels I can’t walk in? I hate heels. I can’t walk like a normal person in heels. I KNOW I never wear them. Why!?

2. My room is never cleaner than it is in the week or two before I have assignments due. I procrastinate clean. Not sure if it’s a win or not…

3. I tell everyone I have good taste in music and love bands like Queen and Journey and all the hard core, authentic 80s stuff that gives me street cred., but actually mostly all I listen to is SAMSH and top 40s on repeat. I really do love Queen and Journey and stuff! really! But…SMASH…

4. I’d very much like to go out there and educate myself by reading and watching all the classics but someone wrote this thing called Harry Potter and then they made 8 movies of it and really I’d just like to watch and read that for the rest of ever.

5. Why do I always get sick during a show? sometimes twice? Why can’t I get sick just after a show? Or not at all? Nope, it’s at always the most inopportune time, right when I have to sing everyday.

6. I simultaneously want to move out and be my own superwoman person and also to never move out of my parents house ever. I can’t decide which option is more terrifying.

7. I love peanut butter but I hate peanuts. Figure that out.

8. I despise shopping but there really is nothing better than getting a pretty new dress.

9. Why do I pretend to be a dog person? I like cats. Most dogs annoy me after the first 10 minutes of pretending to like them. Also, they smell.

10. I hate people and I think they suck, but individuals can be super wonderful sometimes!

11. Getting to know someone new is exhausting and I think I suck at it. I’m a 0 to 20 person and very much wish I could know people really well instantly. It would save me time.

12. I tend to start talking to people like they know the back story of everything I’m talking about – which only ever leads to a very confused conversation partner.

Emma Newman

View the original article here

(Watch on YouTube here)