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.
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.
Horseshit.
You made that up - gov't made cheap money available to buyers, and builders like Levit (Levittown) we're happy to drop thousands of nearly identical econo-boxes up to meet the demand. Nowadays, zoning regulation make it very hard to profit from low-end housing - tax subsidies and zoning requirements are the only reason any are built, at a loss, which is made up by the healthy margins McMansions give builders.
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"?
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.
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.
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/
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
FTFY. If someone has so little money that they are homeless, they by definition don't have thousands of dollars to move hundreds or thousands of miles away and risk signing for an apartment with no guarantee of a job.
Utterly laughable statement. Capitalism traded human beings for profit for hundreds of years. Capitalism kept coal workers on starvation-level wages while forcing them to rent in company towns while being paid in scrip that could only be used at company stores. Capitalism sees Wal-Mart tell their employees how to apply for state benefits (because they pay so little money) and organizes food donation drives for their own workers so they can eat. Capitalism sees the richest man in the world higher ambulances to sit outside warehouses to treat workers for heat stroke because its cheaper than installing air conditioning.
I could go on all day. But aside from all that, every job that has ever been created has come from demand, or expected demand. Not capitalism. Not "job creators".
You know the population of the Soviet Union increased when Stalin was in power, yes? Despite the country losing almost 30 million people during WWII. You capitalist fundamentalists are more full of shit on capitalism and communism than Birther's are on the subject of birth certificates.