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.
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.
Well duh, the people that own property continue to vote for no new housing to be built. They do not want their property to depreciate from adding more housing.
An hour long train ride is not a good substitute for building housing where people actually want to live. I live in Silicon Valley, and we have mile after mile of low-rise sprawl. There is plenty of space to build high density housing in the core area where the jobs are.
Liberals love to criticize Republican tax cuts for the rich, but coastal city zoning regulations contribute as much to income inequality by keeping people of modest means away from the best job opportunities.
Zoning laws and the rise of inequality
Fighting inequality through zoning
The left is waking up to inequality cause by zoning
When it comes to inequality, liberals need to stop asking "Who can we blame for this problem" and start asking "What can we do to fix this problem."
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 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/