Slashdot Mirror
Two Miles From Facebook's Headquarters, Working Poor Live In Trailers (mercurynews.com)
"The working poor are spilling into Bay Area streets for lack of safe, affordable shelter," report two Silicon Valley newspapers describing a "pop-up neighborhood" that's now banding together, "a small community of blue collar RV dwellers...fighting for the only place they can call home."
The beautifully-illustrated article begins with an interview with a grey-haired woman named Lisa Cosey-Steven: [D]espite steady work and little debt, she trudges back and forth to the office every day from a dark RV trailer, packed floor to ceiling with bags of clothes, pet supplies for her seven dogs, thriller novels and food. Cosey-Stevens, 63, has been parked on the shoulder of Bay Road in East Palo Alto, just about two miles from Facebook headquarters and some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, since June. "No one knows how badly I want out of this," she said during an interview in her trailer. "It's depressing to live like this...."
She's part of an unplanned and impromptu RV park, about 80 people pushed out of apartments and into trailers and the edge of homelessness... Their neighborhood of about 50 RVs lines the eastern end of Bay Road and Tara Street, next to a stretch of salvage yards, warehouses and empty lots guarded by chain link fence. It's just off a thoroughfare for local tech employees and sits adjacent to the site of a new, multi-million dollar youth education center, Epacenter Arts. Several of the aging RVs have large banners draped over the sides, making pleas to the big employers in the area: "SOS -- Facebook, Sobrato, Amazon, Google."
The [RV Families Association of East Palo Alto] has a grand vision for East Palo Alto, a city steeped in activism and landlord-tenant disputes: to get a few acres donated by a major tech company to build an RV park with security, facilities and regular, affordable rent for low-income workers. But first, they're fighting City Hall to keep their homes. A proposed ordinance working its way through city government would ban most RVs from overnight parking on city streets.
"It's not like they're trying to be a nuisance to the city," says the mayor of East Palo Alto. "It's a survival thing. It's a strategy, a tactic to survive for a while."
"We are the working homeless," says a 57-year-old upholsterer and Navy veteran "who moved into his RV after his rent in East Palo Alto doubled to $4,000 a month." Another family lost their Redwood City apartment when their landlord increased the rent from $1,300 to $2,800 a month.
The beautifully-illustrated article begins with an interview with a grey-haired woman named Lisa Cosey-Steven: [D]espite steady work and little debt, she trudges back and forth to the office every day from a dark RV trailer, packed floor to ceiling with bags of clothes, pet supplies for her seven dogs, thriller novels and food. Cosey-Stevens, 63, has been parked on the shoulder of Bay Road in East Palo Alto, just about two miles from Facebook headquarters and some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country, since June. "No one knows how badly I want out of this," she said during an interview in her trailer. "It's depressing to live like this...."
She's part of an unplanned and impromptu RV park, about 80 people pushed out of apartments and into trailers and the edge of homelessness... Their neighborhood of about 50 RVs lines the eastern end of Bay Road and Tara Street, next to a stretch of salvage yards, warehouses and empty lots guarded by chain link fence. It's just off a thoroughfare for local tech employees and sits adjacent to the site of a new, multi-million dollar youth education center, Epacenter Arts. Several of the aging RVs have large banners draped over the sides, making pleas to the big employers in the area: "SOS -- Facebook, Sobrato, Amazon, Google."
The [RV Families Association of East Palo Alto] has a grand vision for East Palo Alto, a city steeped in activism and landlord-tenant disputes: to get a few acres donated by a major tech company to build an RV park with security, facilities and regular, affordable rent for low-income workers. But first, they're fighting City Hall to keep their homes. A proposed ordinance working its way through city government would ban most RVs from overnight parking on city streets.
"It's not like they're trying to be a nuisance to the city," says the mayor of East Palo Alto. "It's a survival thing. It's a strategy, a tactic to survive for a while."
"We are the working homeless," says a 57-year-old upholsterer and Navy veteran "who moved into his RV after his rent in East Palo Alto doubled to $4,000 a month." Another family lost their Redwood City apartment when their landlord increased the rent from $1,300 to $2,800 a month.
And yet cities continue to build new office buildings without building enough places for people to live, then wonder why there aren't enough places for people to live. When more people come without enough places to live, that will drive prices up: that is how supply and demand works.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Force Silicon Valley companies to move to other parts of the country at gun point.
Why does Slashdot have so many anti-capitalism articles. Iâ(TM)m assuming most of us have tech careers and are making at least low six figures. The current system is working for us! Who are these articles supposed to appeal to?
I can't speak for Slashdot or the intentions of their staff. Having said that, not every communication is designed to "appeal to" you. Sometimes, the purpose is to show you a view that you may not already agree with in order to promote thought and discussion.
I'll give an example. Given your comment above, one could ask the question: do you care about the large numbers of people for whom the current system is not working very well? Can you imagine any way(s) to improve things for them that don't require sacrificing the situation you enjoy?
If you decide your priority is to "care for" 7 dogs over [something else], then why should others have sympathy that you don't have [something else]? You picked 7 dogs because that's what you wanted most.
Having that many animals is a sure sign of mental illness. Not being glib. For that fact alone, I'll give some sympathy. That said, your point is valid.
America has a growing problem with homeless people with full-time jobs, and it's worse in places like Silicon Valley, where all the tech yuppies have driven up real estate prices. The working class people with RVs are the ones who are doing pretty well as silicon valley has lots of wage-earners in much worse shape than that.
It pains me to admit this, but the fact that America--the wealthiest nation on Earth--has a growing number of homeless people with full-time jobs is perhaps an indication that it's time to admit that capitalism failed, and it did so more or less the way communists predicted, which is more or less the way it failed the last time. Even with its bread lines, the Soviet Union did a better job of providing for the well-being of the population than this.
Not sure why some are always looking for who to blame, while actively denying the very basic idea of cause and effect.
The ASPCA says the *nationwide* average cost per dog is $1,000-$2,000 / year. Things cost 43% in California, on average, so that's roughly $2,100 / year per dog. Total $15,000 / for the dogs. That's what dogs cost. It's not someone's FAULT, it's just a fact. Dogs need food, vet care, etc. If you spend $15,000/year on dogs, and another $15,000/year on whatever odd choice, you're left with less money to take care of yourself. That's called arithmetic, not fault.
It's funny - just this morning I had a conversation with my daughter, mostly listening to her talk. First she said she wanted all of the toys in the Ryan's Toy Reviews line, now available at Walmart. Next, she said she'd spend ALL of her money on those toys. "But then I couldn't get any other toys", she said. "I want to have money in my gifting cup to buy gifts for my friends", she continued. With me barely saying a word, she quickly reasoned through that she did NOT want to spend all of her money on Ryan toys. Maybe just one, she decided. Maybe one Ryan toy would be good.
My daughter understands the cause and effect of choosing to spend money on one thing means you don't have that money for other things she wants. She's four. Four years old.
you buy dry food in bulk and put them down if they get sick. Also, if you're a 63 year old woman living in a trailer you need a lot of dogs for protection. She could ditch every one of those dogs and wouldn't have the extra $2k/mo it takes to rent a tiny, dumpy apartment.
And what's with all the non-stop poor shaming? Is this supposed to make you feel better about abandoning these folks to their miserable fate? Does it? Somewhere in the back of your mind it's gnawing on you, how you're letting fellow Americans live like shit. The Americans who do work you want done.
Bottom line, You want those people to live near where you are so they can cook, clean and fix your plumbing but you'll be damned if you want to pay for them to have an OK life. When people bitch about "gentrification" that's what they're talking about. You know that's messed up, so you do crap like this to try and convince yourself it's their choice. Gives you an out, but like I said, it gnaws on you, doesn't it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Actually, city governments heavily subsidize low-density housing for the affluent, wasting land on single-family residential homes that could be used for apartments which house more people, bring in more tax revenue per acre, and require less infrastructure per person. Inefficient zoning is why housing is in such short supply and expensive, why cities have so much traffic, and why cities have budget problems. It's all a big mess, and government is the problem. Yes, much of it started after WWII, with government-backed mortgages and the mortgage interest deduction, but these subsidies continue to exist to this day.
And property taxes assessed on the value of the land perversely incentivize people to come out in droves to oppose anything that can raise the value of their properties. For example, relaxed height limits, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratios, and minimum parking requirements--these things all attract NIMBYs like flies to a feast. It's all one big, fantastic mess.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I guess you missed the part where rent has recently doubled. In other words, she could afford the rent and the dogs just fine and then the rent doubled.
What would you have her do, take the dogs to the landlord's house and shoot them execution style on the front porch?
Land developers sure as hell aren't going to pay to get that land ready themselves
Utter nonsense. Land developers routinely do all of that prep themselves. They have to follow lots of government rules about how to lay out the streets, what access roads to build, how to build all of the wiring, plumbing and sewer infrastructure, etc., but it's the developers who foot the bill, not the city. As far as I can tell, it has always been that way, too.
Obviously I'm not saying you should feel sorry for the land developers; they make great profits on their investments. But government doesn't do any of this.
The result is massive housing shortages in a lot of places.
Government is the cause of the housing shortages in the bay area, but because of the restrictions it imposes, not because of the things it fails to do. Developers would love to build lots of high density, multi-story housing in the area, but the city councils won't allow it, because they're in the pockets of the long-time residents who love the fact that the house they paid $30K for decades ago is now worth $2M.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
which is why the average price of a home is north of $200k but Median income's around $67k/yr.
Residents don't care about property values. In fact they hate that their homes are "worth" $2M (more like $500k actually) because they can't afford the property taxes and they get forced out of the neighborhoods they spent their lives in.
Nobody really wants to live in a high density multi-story building for very long. I don't think humans are wired for that. You can do that in your early to mid 20s, but when you decide you want kids it's not gonna fly. We're used to having open space. Kids need a place to play. With proper transportation and building that's not really necessary either. But it means more highways, more roads and more infrastructure spending, and that means taxes on the ultra wealthy. It means putting an end to the wealth inequality that's as bad as it was in the 20s now. It means taking all that absurd power the 1%ers have away from them.
The question is, are guys like you gonna like the 1%ers have unlimited power, becoming the new kings? That seems to be the case. I'm not sure why you're doing it, I think you're just "kicking down", e.g. looking down on folks below your social standing to feel better about yourself. There's a saying I've heard before: if nobody's poor then nobody's rich. Thing is, that's an emotional thing, that desire to feel wealthy in the sense that you have more than other folks. It's being exploited to keep working class Americans at each other's throats. It's biting you in the ass. You're having everything taken away from you gradually and that's how the 1%ers are getting away with it. You might die before the worst of it happens (e.g. "I got mine, fuck you" school of economics) but if you're under 55 you won't. Nows the time to stop screwing around and shitting on the poor to make yourself feel better short term and actually solve the problems in your life and mine.
Demand better. Demand a decent life for all Americans. Demand guarantees of that decent life. Remember: you can tell how good a society is by how it treats it's least members.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Decriminalize homelessness.
2. Establish emergency minimal-level shelters were people can shower/sleep, and wash their clothes.
3. Allow people to sleep in their cars, one car, one night, one block,
4. Require people who buy homes to own then for no less than 5 years or be fined, unless proof of financial hardship, divorce or partner split.
5. Restore Section 8 Housing for people with disabilities.
6. Discourage foreign investors and companies from purchasing homes.
7. Rezone areas to end single-family homes.
8. Make sure that homeless people can vote.
9. Rezone certain industrial and business buildings for shelter use.
10. Require all non-profit charities to abstract their organization or religious presence from their offer of help.
12. Require all California cities and towns to take in a certain percentage of the the homeless people.
13. Vote out the people who only represent rich people.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
In other words, she could afford the rent and the dogs just fine and then the rent doubled.
Could she? No where in the article does it say her rent doubled. In fact it talks about the rent of other people. Additionally she is 63 years old, close to retirement age. The inside of her RV looks precisely what you would expect from an incredibly poor person, shit and bags piled up absolutely everywhere.
Make no mistake about it, this woman has a mixture of poor life choices and bad luck written all over her. She has been living paycheck to paycheck shouldering an incredible expense she could not afford in a city she clearly could not afford to live in. Mind you she's 100% mobile now, wants out of this life, but still doesn't leave where she's at in search of something suitable ... and she still has dogs she can't afford, so higher brain function is clearly lacking somewhat.
She was always going to end up in an RV. She's prioritised her dogs and living in an expensive city over a suitable financial buffer to get her through her old age. She won't be able to work forever and at that point the dogs are as good as dead.
I didn't RTFA, but deplorables aren't deplorable because they're poor. In fact many deplorables are rich. What makes deplorables deplorable is their support for white nationalism and a trashy dogshit racist manchild president.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
These problems affect poor people in liberal areas the most. However the housing crisis is also solvable. Three simple changes will remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the market from resolving the housing crisis:
Remove setback requirements
Remove height requirements
Remove zoning restrictions for high density housing
Reducing regulatory overhead is a conservative value. It's also the only value that can solve the housing crisis as it allows the law of supply and demand to work. Unfortunately for current homeowners these changes will lower property values as the market adjusts to new supply. You can't solve the housing crisis by adding more regulations. Choose your values.