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."
I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone who has seven dogs? Life choices man. She chose the expense of seven dogs over the expense of non-disgusting housing.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
and prep land for developers. That's the expensive part of building homes, not throwing up a frame and some wiring/plumbing around it. Folks don't realize how heavily the US Government subsidized their lives in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The just took all that for granted. Land developers sure as hell aren't going to pay to get that land ready themselves, and since the government ain't paying anymore it's just not getting done. The result is massive housing shortages in a lot of places.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're clearly nuts and have zero clue. They aren't lazy and work their butts off. It's true they didn't grow up privileged and go to an expensive school to buy their way in. I had a wealthy grandfather and his business used 100% hispanics for maintenance and kitchen staff. He would say terrible things about hispanics being lazy or stupid, but that was far from the reality. They would work 12 hours and then walk about 4 miles home on foot in the dark if they missed the bus. I seriously doubt you'd be able to work 12 hours a day on your feet 7 days a week. Clearly even though you have an education, you didn't learn jack and behave like an asshole.
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?
It's trolling. They're trolling for page views.
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.
A person with skills doesn't have to pay $4K/month for a tiny apt in a certain zip code - they can MOVE.
Ken
So, what's the ratio of homeless in the US vs. the people who died in the old Soviet Union when they were doing "a better job of providing for the well-being of the population"?
Absolutely. I would love to live on a trailer on 200 acres! Plus this twat in the article ... anyone that lives in an RV with seven dogs, clearly doesn't make logical or educated decisions!
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.
The sheer amount of homeless people in this area, which I have been told may be over 22,000 is daunting. The powers that be in this area have generally not been inclusive of the needs of the poor an low-income people.
There are even some 2,000 college students that represent the future of America, who are now stricken with homelessness in this areas.
Whatever was supposed to happen to put a check and balance the asymmetrical, biased political power of the corporate giants and house-flippers who invest in this area--has failed.
I likely am going to be homeless in a few weeks. As a person with a disability, as I look deeper into the resources here in California. What I have found by following the leads has simply been one of the most disheartening things I have witnessed.
I heard was "low-income" housing exists, which honest people with a SSD/SSI income could never afford. The lay of the landscape currently has a 1-5 year waiting list for a place to live. Yet, I have heard that some housing exists for people making as much as $75,000/yr. I checked up on homeless shelters where a homeless person is not even afforded a wall to put their back against. I have read of a shower and wash van, supporting the homeless that only comes to an area once in a week.
[Who would want to sit next to a person who only showered/bathed once in a week?]
In all honesty, as someone who has written proof that I have tried to add my name to the HUD waiting list for a nearly a decade, I am deeply upset. Yes, clearly I am upset for myself, but also for I am upset for the other homeless people, many of which (also) have disabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
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/
I for one wouldn't mind living in a travel trailer aka an RV. Some are very comfy. What the people in the story are living in, on the streets of San Jose and surrounding cities, are old refurbed box trucks. Think Uhaul rentals kind of trucks. No windows, one door and zero light or air. And did I mention cold? Cold. No insulation or sound proofing. Some people pay monthly rent to live in these squalid conditions. They shower at work or the gym. Now THAT's not a life.
That is simply the unstoppable path of the new economy. We are now told that all the jobs have to be in one of the 10 "Superstar" cities in the USA, because good jobs can't exist in a metro area unless there are millions of people there, because they can only find good workers in those 10 cities. But that high pay only goes to the Rock Star employees. Empty the trash? Why should you deserve any more money than someone emptying trash in Kansas? The result is that housing is bought by the people making $150k and up, and no one really wants to live like they do in Tokyo or Hong Kong, in small apartments in high-rise buildings, so they block that from happening without realizing that this puts $12/hour workers on the streets, or makes them commute 3 hours a day.
People move all the time. Once you are down to living in a trailer, it's not that expensive. In an RV, you just start it up and leave.
Have gnu, will travel.
>"we need more unions"
No, we need more people willing to relocate to where jobs are more plentiful and housing is far more reasonable (oh, and taxes much lower, to boot). And there are plenty of such places outside of CA.
you need the land graded, roads built, water, gas and electric lines run. You need police and fire departments. In otherwords, infrastructure. That's not billions, that's trillions of dollars in land development that was all done on the gov't's dime.
Zoning regulations are a red herring. The rich got tired of paying for working class Americans to have decent homes. The only reason they had to for a time was post WWII the working class, having just got back from fighting a war, had gained a sense of entitlement. They felt owed something. Also a _lot_ of working age men died in that war, meaning labor shortages. So for a time they were better treated. Those times have passed, and we're back to where we were in the 1920s. Better tech at food production and a few depression era policies (social security & medicare, food stamps, etc) have masked some of that, but even those are under siege.
What I don't get is why is it that confronting all this reality makes Americans so damned uncomfortable? It's not like anyone's gonna tax you to to the max. Odds are you're living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of Americans, and even if you've got a bit of savings it's not enough to matter. When it comes to raising taxes to pay for social programs it's the top 5% who would be the targets. And it's not like they'd lose much in the way of standard of living, what they're really lose is _power_.
That's what you're defending when you post stuff like you did: a group of ultra-wealthy power mongers who's wealth has ceased being material and become raw power.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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
Last count, Google has over 50,000 employees in the bay area with its campus expanding all the way from Mountain View down into San Jose now. Facebook has under 15,000. Redwood City, 2014 Population: 90,000, just saw the opening of giant 6+ story apartment complexes that increase its population nearly 20% over a few months.
Cisco has over 60,000 employees in its massive 3-city campus at the north end of San Jose.
But the RV campus was previously lining El Camino Real in Palo Alto outside Stanford, it just wound up in East Palo Alto because they got kicked off the Stanford property.
Google, Facebook, and Apple all need their asses kicking for this stupidity of putting tens of thousands of employees into single buildings because it makes for "better creativity". Really? 2 hour commute each way makes people more creative? It makes them earn a ton of money of which they see none because of rent and living costs beyond ridiculous.
2 bed apt within 40 minutes of google is likely to set you back ~$3000/month.
-- A change is as good as a reboot.
Thank you for saying that. I actually get a bit self-conscious about my writing at times, so your post is meaningful to me.
I get self-conscious about errors - I said "things cost 43% in California", missing the word "more". I also often wonder if my logic is clear, if readers will be able to follow my reasoning.
In this instance, I almost posted a follow-up explaining that I meant it's not a moral issue (fault), but an arithmetic issue, a choice. If someone *wanted* to spend a million dollars a year on exotic animals while living in a tent they could certainly do that. I wouldn't *fault* them. I would just be aware that they could have chosen a nice house with no giraffes.
In this case, the story makes it sound like perhaps the person is unhappy with the results of their decisions. In which case, we can only "fix" that by a) educating them about their options or b) forcing them to do what we think is best, taking away their freedom to make "foolish" choices.
Liberals aren't mindlessly against removing all regulations they way conservatives are mindlessly against making any. There's nothing wrong with changing or removing ones that have proven to be stupid and damaging like SF's zoning/building regulations.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If your dog cost you $20/month, you're abusing the dog. Your annual vet visits alone should be more than that.
Just another day in Paradise
“a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.” [American Economic Review poll of economists, 93+% agreed]
Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate Gunnar Myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.”
Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”
His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”
[https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html]