"Now why in the world would I ever leave this?"

This article in the San Francisco Chronicle is a litmus test. It's about a colony of "homeless" people who have made a home for themselves in an unoccupied corner of rural Solano County, California, where they enjoy the scenery, share their food and meth, build bicycles and carts from castaway parts, and stay out of everyone else's hair. The settlement has been there for 10 years.

Do you sympathize with the squatters, or with the authorities who'd like to move them into shelters and "very low-income" housing?

Comments

[Jennifer]

They say they would like nothing better than to see those who squat in The Colony move into housing and counseling services -- but they can't find a way to make that happen. The same goes for the several hundred other homeless people who drift around Fairfield and sleep out of sight in bushes around downtown landmarks or empty fields on the edges of the city. Like the beaver pond.

On Grylliade's site there was a topic-forum called "Libertarian book recommendations" and I recommended the book Pioneer, Go Home! by Richard Powell. This quote reminds me very much of the book--irate social workers wondering "Why would you want to leave this housing project, with all of its wonderful rules concerning what you can do in your yard and what colors your curtains can be and how much furniture you can have on your porch, to go live in some nasty little squatter's camp with no rules?"

On a related note, I wonder how much homelessness is CAUSED by all these bullshit "safe housing" rules. Thoreau (the original one, not ours) was able to live several years in a wooden shack he was able to build for approximately three week's worth of average-workingman wages. And yet a few years back I read of a modern man who bought land in Massachusetts and built a rustic cabin on it--and the government wouldn't let him live in it, because you're not allowed to live in a bulding unless it contains all the modern luxuries the government says you MUST buy and pay for.

[saw-whet]

"Do you sympathize with the squatters?" Yes, I do. And all of you young punks with your 'dirty hippies' comments can go to hell.

[if you want to know]

I sympathize with the guy who owns that unoccupied corner of rural Solano County.

[jf]

Why would anyone have to sympathize with either side?

[crimethink]

and the government wouldn't let him live in it, because you're not allowed to live in a bulding unless it contains all the modern luxuries the government says you MUST buy and pay for.

The sad thing is, that if enough people start living cheap, our economy will go down the toilet. Welcome to the debt-financed service economy of the 21st century!

[crimethink]

Another reason to invest in gold sooner rather than later, I might add.

[Jesse Walker]

I sympathize with the guy who owns that unoccupied corner of rural Solano County.

The article doesn't say, but I get the impression that it's public land. I don't think a private owner would leave the colony unmolested for 10 years.

By Lockean libertarian standards, that would mean the proper owners are the squatters themselves.

[Jennifer]

These squatters, compared to most Americans, are far more in line with the idea of "independence" that people had in the early part of this ocuntry. Almost none of us posters here would be considered "independent adults" by the standards of early America, because we don't work for ourselves--we have bosses and other people with the right to tell us "You MUST be in Spot X by Z o'clock, or else."

Bleah. Drive to work, fight traffic on your way, stop at the seatbelt checkpoint and the drunk checkpoint and everything else, pay your bills on time and feel happy that you put a little in the bank before the whole cycle starts again next month--and keep repeating to yourself "I'm free. Ah, sweet freedom."

Okay, I'll admit I'm in a bad mood today.

[if you want to know]

The article doesn't say, but I get the impression that it's public land. I don't think a private owner would leave the colony unmolested for 10 years.

If that's true, Jesse, then I say: "Goooooo, squatters! More power to ya!"

[crimethink]

Jennifer,

Something tells me that the grass is greener on the other side. I'm sure the average American farmer of 1790 would find plenty to envy about what we take for granted.

[Jennifer]

The sad thing is, that if enough people start living cheap, our economy will go down the toilet. Welcome to the debt-financed service economy of the 21st century!

I know, Crimethink. I made an incredibly obscene-sounding noise when I read your comment. When we all got our three-hundred-dollar tax rebate checks a few years back I put my check in the bank, and was rather bemused to hear the president say "Now you all take this money and go SPEND it!" What ever happened to thriftiness as a virtue?

So how dare these people in the story live a comfortable life without spending shitloads of money on consumer goods they don't need? Go out and buy sparkly glitter fake-tattoos, and a cell phone with three thousand different ringtone options, and make sure your wardrobe is sufficiently large that you can go for three months without wearing the same outfit twice. No, you may not say "I'm dropping out of the rat race; I'd rather read a book than buy a movie rental." Reading books does not help the economy or create jobs for Chinese factory workers, dammit!

[Jennifer]

I'm sure the average American farmer of 1790 would find plenty to envy about what we take for granted.

Oh, yes, indeed he would, Crimethink. Technology alone ensures that. But the government is doing its damnedest to make it otherwise.

[Jimmy]

They belong in prison. they must be breaking some laws. I say round 'em up for some good 'ol fashioned SEVERE punishment!!!

[saw-whet]

Aw, Crimethink, you're striking out here. Economy goes in the toilet (!) because I choo, choo, choose to minimize my reliance on consumerism. And then you conflate a 1790's farmer with a twenty-first century person.

This dirty hippy says I think you got a lot of re-thinking to do.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

"Do you sympathize with the squatters, or with the authorities who'd like to move them into shelters and "very low-income" housing?"

Neither.

After getting burned by our corrupt court system, I was "homeless" for a short while, and in my humble opinion at least 75% of the "homeless" should be shot while they're committing their next burglary and/or petty theft.

Eliminating the half-assed handouts (like SS "disability") would do a lot to ending both of these pseudo-problems: the bum/thief problem as well as the 'too many useless social workers' problem.

[FXKLM]

I still agree that these people should be left alone, but this sentence casts some doubt on how much they "stay out of everyone else's hair":

A lot of this talking and organizing goes on in between jail stints for minor assault, burglary or drug charges.

Even the purest libertarian can sympathize with someone who's a little uncomfortable living near a colony of often deranged individuals who sometimes wander into town to commit minor assaults or burglaries.

[David]

But not just the government. More and more, I find myself thinking that the blame lies squarely where it's always belonged, on the people. People have either demanded all the laws and regulations that we're saddled with, or didn't fight when someone else did. It's on us.

[Jennifer]

on the people. People have either demanded all the laws and regulations that we're saddled with, or didn't fight when someone else did. It's on us.

I've always had a problem with statements like that, because it blurs the difference between a group and its individual members. You know how terrorists say "We're attacking Americans because the Americans have done the following horrible foreign-policy things?" Well, on the one hand they're right; Americans have done some crummy things to the Third World. On the other hand, I'm an American, and I've never hurt a third-worlder in my life!

And yes, "Americans" have voted for a lot of bullshit regulations, yet a lot of the individual Americans who suffer from them had nothing to do with it at all.

[Timothy]

I, for one, hate dirty hippies. And I don't mind saying that, damn dirty hippies.

However, if 1) nobody owns the land (and I count government as "nobody") Or 2) The proper owner of the land doesn't mind them living there, then I don't really see a problem with them living there so long as they don't stir up trouble for others.

It is a pity, however, that they're tossing rusted shopping carts and trash into the pond, but if nobody owns it then by some constructions they own it, so it's theirs to destroy. Now, when they go into town to panhandle, steal bikes, get in fights, and commit other petty crimes we run into a problem. Like recharging your car battery for the TV by stealing power from locals, for instance.

But they should clean up and get jobs, really, those lazy, damn dirty hippies.

[saw-whet]

Um, I guess I was being a bit unlibertarian when I suggested that Crimethink change his opinion. But he's not the target. Hakluyt is. I just posted on the above thread something that I hope drives him nuts.

[Jennifer]

I figured it out, how to square my coments with Crimethink's: Americans of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would find much to envy about our technology and certain of our social attitudes, but they'd find a lot to hate about our government and our expectations about what constitutes a "regular" life.

[Jason Ligon]

I only quibble with the choice to choo choo choose to live on handouts. I propose nothing legal as a remedy, and I know that voluntary gifts are voluntarily received. Still, the choice not to be productive even to the extent you can feed yourself without relying on the sacrifice of others has a distasteful moral component.

[Jennifer]

I agree with those of you who dislike the fact that these people either panhandle or steal, but suppose they all generate their own income, whether through day jobs, collecting bottles or whatever? But just the bare minimum--they make enough to buy their own food and toiletries and the occasional new item of clothing, but otherwise they don't contribute at all to our consumer society.

[saw-whet]

Timothy - Dirty hippies do not throw shopping carts into ponds, bums do. Just wanted to clear that up, being a water quality engineer as well as a dirty hippy and everything.

[Jason Ligon]

Jennifer:

Not a problem whatsoever.

[saw-whet]

Jason - No truer words were ever spoken.

Say, does anyone know where that phrase comes from? Shakespeare?

[Jennifer]

Jason--

Cool.

[albo]

Trash piles and filthy drunks and addicts. The colony is a public nuisance. Libertarians can still understand that without losing their cred, right?

[Jennifer]

Two sheriff's deputies and a cleanup crew of a half-dozen county prisoners descended upon The Colony that day and hauled out 90 square yards of rubbish. . . . . "The homeless say we don't give them enough, but the key word there is 'give,' " said Deputy Sheriff Ken Kramer, head of the cleanup crew, before driving away. "We offer them help at Mission Solano. They can get welfare. But they just don't take it."

Well, if these people aren't filing for welfare benefits to which they are legally "entitled," then perhaps the cost of the city's hauling out the occasional trashpile is a bargain.

[downstater]

I agree to a great extent with David. I'm not speaking in a purely economic context when I say that I find regulations to be a product of a form of supply and demand. Governments create policy, for the most part, because it is demanded by the people. This is the case from the largest policy on a national scale, to the smallest municipal grass height restriction. I find government to be far more reactive to public demand than proactive in managing lives.

However, Jennifer's point is a good one as well. How am I to blame for the actions of my government which is largely out of my control? I voted against policy X, so why should I be hated when my government carries it out? I think most reasonable people around the world understand this. In my experiences overseas, I've never been treated rudely by anyone because I'm an American and they think that American policy sucks. Most people know that I hold about as much sway in Washington as a regular Frenchman holds in Paris, or an Italian in Rome. Those who do think along those lines are largely not the sort of people that I think are worth troubling myself over.

[Fanny Allen]

"I like to live outdoors and I like to make things, so this is all I need."

Here in small city in Northern Vermont, we have seasonal homeless camps all along the waterfront. Now that the leaves have dropped, you can see the remnants of where they had camped out. At times, it's all of 5-10 feet off a bike path or walk path.

Perhaps we need to acknowledge that the chronically homeless may not want to be sheltered. Additionally, job counseling is lip service if the community is unable or unwilling to provide jobs to chronic substance abusers with prison records or those with a history of mental illness. Certainly, the goal should remain to provide half-way houses and treatment for the mentally ill, to provide rehab for substance abusers who genuinely want treatment and to work harder at reintegrating into a community those released from prison.

At the same, perhaps we should also consider setting aside campgrounds for the homeless as an alternative for those who resist shelters or treatment. Raw sewage in our wetlands is not okay.

[saw-whet]

I'm still trying to whack away at Hak on the Mammon thread. The key is that no matter how stupid your statement, if you address it to Hak, he always seems to need to respond.

[fyodor]

Regarding the many reasons to not sympathize with these degenerates, I personally would interpret Jesse's question to be focused on the issue of where they should live. That they might do bad things in larger proportions to the wider society would not likely change were they to be moved to low-income housing would it? Unless maybe that counseling was really worthwhile? Ha-ha...

[Pedro Bento]

"The sad thing is, that if enough people start living cheap, our economy will go down the toilet."

People do not put their savings under their mattresses. Money in the bank is spent. If enough people decide to start living cheap, there would be more investment and higher economic growth. People would just consume more tomorrow.

[doubled]

How about feeling sorry for all those people who would be getting the government's attention and benefits (disabled , mentally ill , war veterans , etc....) . Instead the unproductive squatters take thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars away from those who really need it or really earned it.

[saw-whet]

Aw, crap. He's taking the bait but to push him over the edge will take more time than I have. Would someone else like to step up to the plate?

[Jimmy]

Trash piles and filthy drunks and addicts. The colony is a public nuisance. Libertarians can still understand that without losing their cred, right?

Agree, get all a 'em people what live their all into prison where they belongs.

[fyodor]

That said, while I admit I'm not up on my Locke, I have a hard time with the notion that these folks own the land. If it's "public," then the government owns it. Now, I may fully agree that if it's not owned to carry out a legitimate function of government, the government probably should not own it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't legitimately (as in legally) own it. Or look at it another way: would these folks have been able to "homestead" this land if the government hadn't been keeping anyone else from buying it? It's state protectionism at the least. And if the state acting outside of libertarian principles can cancel its property ownership, then I don't see how the same could be used to confer property ownership.

[saw-whet]

OK, I moved it up to the Babies thread. The comment I made to Hak was so stupid I could just barely post it.

[fyodor]

Regarding David v. Jennifer on "who's to blame," I agree with both. David's right that we shouldn't blame politicians per se when it's the people who elected them and are responsible for them, and Jennifer is right that it's a gross over-generalization to blame everyone equally and en masse as if they're all acting as one. But then, there's a certain degree of inevitable paradox involved when addressing the fruits of electoral decision making. As long as we're not indiscriminately killing people over it, it's not the worst of sins to gloss over that paradox, for simplicity's sake.

[Dave W.]

Fyodor:

Because property ownership is admninistered by the state in the first place. No state, no property ownership. One reason we are libs here, rather than anarchists.

Because the state creates and administers property rights, the state gets to say what is propertized and what is not. US examples: air (not propertized); land (quite propertized); water (somewhat propertized); language (not propertized); copyrightable expression (propertized for 100 years only). As you can see, property rights are not the same in every context. there is no brooding omnipresence in the sky that says to our legislators: "here is how property has to work."

When many states (especially western ones) decided to propertize the (basically stolen) land, many drew adverse possession into their property scheme. Now, I am not sure of the law in Calfornia now, but this adverse possession feature of propertized land is part of the whole property scheme. It makes like sense to make some general statement here like: "that is not how property works."

I am not sure about the ref to Locke (he predated our Indian Wars), but adverse possession law generally applies to the kind of thing the Solano homeless are doing at the dirty pond. So it is natural to consider adverse possession here.

In many states, there is a "under color of title" requirement. Even if CA had adverse possession, this might prevent the meth heads from getting good title.

In some states there are requirements that you keep others from trespassing. Again, this could be problems for the meth crew.

In some states, possession has to be continuous, which probably explains why the cops are kicking them a few feet away every so often.

Now, you may not be inclined to like adverse possession. Many don't and many non-Colorado states eschew that kind of law. However, if this is your first experience with adverse possession law, then you may want to reserve judgment until you read more about it.

As for myself, I could go either way on adverse possession of land. However, I am in favor of having a "working requirement" in US patent law. I would hate to subscribe to any belief system that challenges a government's right to write its property laws to handle abandoned property however it sees fit. In summation, I see nothing unlibertarian or uncapitalistic about adverse possession laws generally.

[Timothy]

Jennifer: Assuming they generate their own income, don't steal, and don't cause problems for other residents (and I consider begging a problem), then whatever. Although I reserve the right to call them smelly and never, ever, go there.

[Ig]

By and Large I agree with Jennifer. But as an outdoor enthusiast (hiking, biking and the like) I have a problem with people trashing public land. I spent some time in central England and observed their "Gypsy" populations who travelled about in small bands of maybe two or three family units. They would just show up on the most improbable public land (median strips between the motorways, fields beside the factory, etc..) and live there until they chose to move on or were "encouraged" to do so by the local police. As with these folks, they typically left heaps of garbage and human by product for others to clean up. If you want to live on the free, at least clean up after yourself and don't go about harrassing the locals.

[fyodor]

Okay Dave W, you gonna explain "adverse possession" to me, or are you gonna make me...google it?

[Jennifer]

The problem with debating regulation versus none, or varying forms of property rights, is that no matter WHAT solution you offer, it's easy to come up with a lot of hypothetical situations wherein someone innocent gets hurt.

Like me--on the one hand I think the guy in Massachusetts who bought a house in isolated woods should have been allowed to live in his rustic cabin. On the other hand, I agree with the laws which say you can't put an outhouse in a crowded neighborhood and subject your neighbors to the smell. It's knowing where exactly you draw the line that is tough, but right now I think the line encroaches much too far on individual rights.

[saw-whet]

Damn it, it's not working. I think the guy's a machine. I give up.

[fyodor]

I agree with the laws which say you can't put an outhouse in a crowded neighborhood and subject your neighbors to the smell. It's knowing where exactly you draw the line that is tough

I think of odor as something tangible enough that its wafting onto other people's property constitutes a violation of their rights. Telling someone he can't live in his own dilapidated shack in the woods is supposed to be for his own good, a whole different ball of flax.

[Jennifer]

Telling someone he can't live in his own dilapidated shack in the woods

I don't think it was even dilapidated so much as it was without all modern conveniences. Maybe well-built, and easy to heat in winter, just not wired for electricity.

[saw-whet]

This is a job for...Building Codes Guy! Man, oh, man, could I fill you guys in on stuff. For example, the building codes aren't meant to protect the guy "for his own good," although some misguided building codes inspectors may believe that.

Nope, nope, nope, the codes are reactive, not proactive. They protect tenants and future buyers. And with the new 2000 International Code quite a bit of consideration is given to maintaining the quality of neighborhoods. Haky enough for ya?

[b-psycho]

Leaning -- slightly -- towards sympathizing with the squatters.

If no one owns that land then they're actually settlers, no one has the authority to make 'em go away if it's not their land. As for the "but the government owns it" thing: ownership confers a power of exclusion, land cannot be simultaneously public (open to anyone) and "public" (read: government property) -- if it could, then technically you could demand to walk into the offices of any government building, including the WhiteHouse, without a security clearance, try that an' lemme know how it goes....

If nothing is being done with the space, not even so much as a park, then actually the real squatters here are the government.

At the same time, they need to kick out the ones that go robbing people. It's contradictory for them to invoke their property rights while allowing their people to violate those of others, theft should be grounds for eviction if they want to keep that.

Now, I'm not saying that I personally think their status is a good thing, no. I'd prefer if they built up their area in some way, rather than settling for such a naked existence, but that's not my call. All that matters is that they're there & no one owns the land, so by default it's theirs.

[quasibill]

fyodor:

without getting into the depths of it, Lockeian theories on property start with the proposition that a person owns himself, and anything he appropriates from nature through his labor.

As applied to this case (and adverse possession, which is a common law principle that generally allows title to real property to pass to squatters after they have squatted successfully for a period of time), a Lockeian argument can be made that the squatters are 'using' otherwise unused land, and therefore have a property interest in it.

Of course, this is a simplification (some might say a gross oversimplification), but I hope it answers your question a little bit.

[Wintermute]

"Public land" is government-owned land; and government can make most any rule it likes for the use of that land (there have been some free-speech cases, though). It's not like every citizen is a tenant-in-common owner of said land.

Also typically, no person or entity can adversely possess against the state.

[quasibill]

"On the other hand, I agree with the laws which say you can't put an outhouse in a crowded neighborhood and subject your neighbors to the smell"

this was the original province of nuisance law (that beast which has recently been perverted to sue gun makers). And, in the end, it is a much better way of handling your outhouse problem than regulation - if the guy builds an outhouse that doesn't stink, noone cares and nothing happens. If he creates an unholy stench that offends all neighbors as well as the rodents, well, you could get together and get an equitable injunction or possibly money damages.

Then there's always the market solution, which entails you and the neighbors buying the smelly SOB out, or at least paying for him to improve his outhouse to the point where it does not emanate odors. Or some other form of voluntary solution (that's the beauty of non-coercive measures - you can usually find very creative ways that make everyone happy).

[downstater]

They protect tenants and future buyers. And with the new 2000 International Code quite a bit of consideration is given to maintaining the quality of neighborhoods.

I've never considered building codes to protect owners, tenants, or future owners from their own property so much as to protect my property from theirs. Some building codes bother me less than others. I honestly don't mind requiring some sort of standard that should be followed to ensure some level of safety to my property - should some no-nothing try to diy his own electrical panel, gas lines, etc. and ultimately damage my property.

I guess the alternative is for me to just sue if my neighbor's crappy wiring skills damages my home. But wouldn't it be better to just ensure that it's done right to begin with? That is not a rhetorical question, because I'm not actually sure and am open to convincing. I'm also not contending that govt. is the best source for determining what "done right" really means.

[fyodor]

quasibill,

Yeah, thanks, I've since looked up adverse possession, and while there are very likely rules to it that the squatters have not followed to a t (very, very likely, in fact!), I'm not taking Jesse's question in such a way that those rules necessarily are cogent to the discussion he's looking for. But then, the more I think about his question, the more I lose a grasp on exactly what he's looking for. If it comes down to letting people be even if their decisions seem questionable versus forcing them to be taken care of by others with their best interests (supposedly) in mind, I think (and hope) most folks here would clearly take the former. But this specific example raises so many tangential issues that thinking about it in any depth starts to become quagmiric. (Not that that's a word...)

[saw-whet]

"But wouldn't it be better to just ensure that it's done right to begin with?"

Yes. Check out the Reference section of the building code and you'll get more answer to you question than you can imagine, on many levels. The Reference section lists all of the industry standards that are required under the code.

Thatis, the building industry and all tangential material suppliers through their various industry associations wrote the building code (as it were). The government simply 1. required it to exist 2. enforces it and 3. makes changes to it. The book itself is privately printed and sold by West Publishing.

[saw-whet]

More specificaly, "done right" means being done to industry standards and specifications. For example, the insulation on wire must meet a certain spec. You can always buy cheap crap that doesn't meet the spec but then you would be inviolation of the law. And you would be in violation of the law because you are causing a hazardous situation for others.

Government seems to play a big role in all this because they are the most visable. But it's NEMA, SSPC, ASTM, AWPA, AWS, AGC, ANSI and god knows how many more seemingly obscure organizations that are doing the yoeman's work.

[no worries]

"Don't worry, I'm not a stabbing hobo, I'm a singing hobo."

[Douglas Fletcher]

Get 'em out by Friday.

Practically speaking, they might find less hassling in Idaho, though it is awfully cold in the winter up there.

[JDM]

No one likes smelly hippie bums. This seems like a good way of keeping them out of the way and preventing tthem from peeing on the bus.

[joe]

I heard Drew Barrymore took a dump in the woods nearby, and declared it "awesome!"

To each his own romantic fantasies, I guess.

[Rhywun]

joe,

I think she only likes the poop produced by noble savages.

[hodank]

while 90% of ownership may be possession, it's not 'theirs' unless they can defend it... to arms!
they should build a fort 😀

[Kevin Carson]

Jennifer,

I totally agree. The use of "safety" codes to outlaw cheap self-built housing is just another example of how the professionalization of life is making decent and comfortable poverty obsolete. As Ivan Illich wrote in Tools for Conviviality, as late as WWII something like a third of all new housing units in Massachusetts were still self-built. Since then, new technology (cob houses and other forms of alternative building methods) has made self-built housing even easier. Yet the law interferes with it far more. Same thing goes for lots of other kinds of consumption, where the cartelized manufacturers collude to abandon the older (and cheaper, more durable and repairable) models, and to stop making replacement parts.

[joe]

Rhwuyn,

Barrymore's noble savage + Methamphetamine = Reason's noble savage.

[joe]

Kevin,

Nothing says "comfortable poverty" like dying of TB in a windowless basement.

God bless building reform.

[Jennifer]

Nothing says "comfortable poverty" like dying of TB in a windowless basement.

Yes, you'll be much more comfortable dying of TB in a homeless shelter after your basement apartment is condemned and you find you can't afford to rent any of the "proper" apartments available.

Joe, I personally would not want to live in a house without electricity. Not nowadays, anyway (maybe I'd've felt differently when I was younger and more bohemian). But if a man doesn't mind living in such a house, why not let him? If a guy is really poor and trying to get ahead in life, why not let him pay $50 a month for a little rustic shack rather than $600 a month for an efficiency apartment wired for electricity and broadband connections?

I could maybe see the point of rules covering where parents with small children must live. Maybe. But adults who are responsible only for themselves and nobody else? I fully agree with Kevin: poor people who want to get ahead would find it much easier if the government's "for your own good" laws didn't make life a LOT more expensive than it really has to be.

[Jennifer]

I remember reading an article about some South Asian immigrants--the kind who arrive here with nothing and within five years own a chain of convenience stores. One way they manage to do that is to live super-duper-cheap: instead of one person renting a $600 apartment, they'll have twenty people rent it. They convert the apartment into a dormitory and sleep in shifts, and have no luxuries like privacy. . . . and yet by living so super-cheaply they're able to save a large chunk of money in a small time, and buy a business and become a success. But the government says "No. You are not ALLOWED to forgo privacy in favor of saving money. You are REQUIRED to have X square feet of space per person in yoiur apartment. How DARE you choose to live a less luxurious lifestyle in hope of saving money!"