OT: the housing crisis in the Bay Area (and beyond...)

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Socio-economic doesn't jive here. It's about competition.

Current residents that can't afford to stay don't have the skills necessary to compete with other potential job seekers, and thus lose out on more money that they would need to make in order to stay. That's competition. If they did have the skills they would beat out others for those jobs and have the $ to pay the rising cost of living that comes with the rush of everyone moving to a tech-tropolis.

Keeping out potential high earners looking to move to the Bay Area isn't fair to them either. You work your whole life to get a good job, make good money and want to move to the bay area and work for FB, GOOG, etc. They want to live as close to work as possible, and that it their right. They shouldn't be forced to live farther away and commute more because people have chosen to keep their basic skills/job in 2019 that hasn't seen wage growth/opportunity like technology.

I'm 100% for a fair shake, but i'm 150% for competition.

Let's say they do protect the housing cost, but everything else around them keeps going up in price. More expensive places to eat, shop, schools, etc. Those people who stay and have cheap rent won't be able to afford to keep up with the other stuff around them, so they are silo'd in a rich neighborhood, surrounded by things they can't afford. Where does it stop? Reduced food prices, schools, etc for those same folks who have reduced rent? That doesn't seem very fair to the others around there either.

So if the folks living in West Oakland who worked in the public schools or down at the port didn't go to school to get Computer Science degrees from Stanford, well tough on them, that's their fault? Is it their fault their grandparents were redlined out of mortgages that would have allowed them to buy their homes 60-70 years ago, creating the beginnings of a intergenerational wealth transfer that might have insulated the community from what it's seeing today? Let's not pretend there's no socio-economic impact here.

You're also ignoring the very real consequences of exiling large portions of a community -- not even the poor, but middle class workers like firefighters, police, teachers and others -- outside the communities where they work.

Those jobs that "haven't seen wage growth like technology" are also the ones that keep the roads paved, meals cooked and buses driven. It's that "competition" mindset that's led to a further bifurcation of the whole area into haves and have nots.

I'm not advocating for freezing these communities in amber and advocating for no change ever happening. But there has to be more consideration for a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the growing region that serves everyone, not just blithely handwave at "well, that's competition" and push out the very folks who made these places attractive to live in to begin with.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Socio-economic doesn't jive here. It's about competition.

Current residents that can't afford to stay don't have the skills necessary to compete with other potential job seekers, and thus lose out on more money that they would need to make in order to stay. That's competition. If they did have the skills they would beat out others for those jobs and have the $ to pay the rising cost of living that comes with the rush of everyone moving to a tech-tropolis.

Keeping out potential high earners looking to move to the Bay Area isn't fair to them either. You work your whole life to get a good job, make good money and want to move to the bay area and work for FB, GOOG, etc. They want to live as close to work as possible, and that it their right. They shouldn't be forced to live farther away and commute more because people have chosen to keep their basic skills/job in 2019 that hasn't seen wage growth/opportunity like technology.

I'm 100% for a fair shake, but i'm 150% for competition.

Let's say they do protect the housing cost, but everything else around them keeps going up in price. More expensive places to eat, shop, schools, etc. Those people who stay and have cheap rent won't be able to afford to keep up with the other stuff around them, so they are silo'd in a rich neighborhood, surrounded by things they can't afford. Where does it stop? Reduced food prices, schools, etc for those same folks who have reduced rent? That doesn't seem very fair to the others around there either.

I’m curious to hear more from you.

So hypothetically—let’s say a certain group of people were given unequal access to ownership of property so they rented. The neighborhood they rented in was neglected and the landlords didn’t fix the rental properties and the city neglected the roads and the neighborhood eventually got run down.

All of the sudden a huge influx of wealth enters and the landlords realized if they kicked out their renters and sold the property to a newly minted rich person they could make buckets of cash.

Would you consider that fair? Would you consider the competition of that market fair?

It’s very clear what my stance is and I’ve come to terms with the inequality. I think people need to realize the privilege they get before assuming they’re playing on a level playing field though.

[kppolich]

Responses to each in red.

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

So if the folks living in West Oakland who worked in the public schools or down at the port didn't go to school to get Computer Science degrees from Stanford, well tough on them, that's their fault? Is it their fault their grandparents were redlined out of mortgages that would have allowed them to buy their homes 60-70 years ago, creating the beginnings of a intergenerational wealth transfer that might have insulated the community from what it's seeing today? Let's not pretend there's no socio-economic impact here.

West Oakland isn't what it used to be, like it or not. If you don't let the rich people come in and pay more taxes you'll never see wages rise for state employees (teachers, roads, etc). It is unfortunate though that CA taxes are already absurdly high compared to the rest of the country, and anyone bold enough to ask for more tax money will probably get laughed out of the room.

Intergenerational wealth transfer has to start somewhere. These folks who can't afford to stay in New Oakland can move somewhere for a while if they see the writing on the wall and start building their wealth and pass that onto their kids. Simple as that.


You're also ignoring the very real consequences of exiling large portions of a community -- not even the poor, but middle class workers like firefighters, police, teachers and others -- outside the communities where they work.

See above and add - those folks can also work for non-state funded organizations, if they choose. Their pay will rise, but not until more money is coming in or someone makes a better wage increase argument to the local government.

Those jobs that "haven't seen wage growth like technology" are also the ones that keep the roads paved, meals cooked and buses driven. It's that "competition" mindset that's led to a further bifurcation of the whole area into haves and have nots.

They haven't seen wage growth compared to technology because most of them are still doing the same damn thing they were 20 years ago. Cooks cook food. Firefighters put out fires. Teachers teach. And the best of the best of each of those get promotoed and make more money.


I'm not advocating for freezing these communities in amber and advocating for no change ever happening. But there has to be more consideration for a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the growing region that serves everyone, not just blithely handwave at "well, that's competition" and push out the very folks who made these places attractive to live in to begin with.

[kppolich]

Red responses to each below as well.

Originally Posted by jtakeda

I’m curious to hear more from you.

Hi

So hypothetically—let’s say a certain group of people were given unequal access to ownership of property so they rented. The neighborhood they rented in was neglected and the landlords didn’t fix the rental properties and the city neglected the roads and the neighborhood eventually got run down.

If my neighborhood was neglected and I didn't have to stay, I would leave regardless of the situation.

All of the sudden a huge influx of wealth enters and the landlords realized if they kicked out their renters and sold the property to a newly minted rich person they could make buckets of cash.

I would make a choice if I was still living there. 1.) Do i think the new money coming to town will make my community better? If yes, I'd look to stay or buy knowing things would get better. That is an investment and should be treated with the same risk as any investment. 2.) If I think I won't be able to provide for my family and keep up with the new neighbors- hello any other location that allows me to do so.

Would you consider that fair? Would you consider the competition of that market fair?

Yes, this isn't a new problem. Those who saw it coming either left or stayed and made a financial move to build some wealth and are still there. Those who have stayed because they had a low rent are now in a tough spot. Fair, kind of. Life? Yes.

It’s very clear what my stance is and I’ve come to terms with the inequality. I think people need to realize the privilege they get before assuming they’re playing on a level playing field though.

[GonaSovereign]

Originally Posted by pdonk

Here is an interesting option for lower income housing that has recently occurred in my neighbourhood. The city, in partnership with a local not for profit has purchased a rooming house in order to preserve it.

http://www.pnlt.ca/

Minor thread drift. We're almost neighbours. I'm in Swansea. If you ride the Ellis loops, you go past my place.

And, I'm hoping for the best with Parkdale. Such a great hood, always in massive transition.

[mtechnica]

So what happens when you have a place like SF and people making under 45k a year are truly priced out of affording housing because of the free market, so they move, but also don’t choose to commute to work there since they can make the same amount of money somewhere else but also afford to live there? Who will staff the coffee shops? Who will work at the gas station? Who will work at the grocery store? You can’t entirely support a community with high paid tech workers can you? If you’re making 70k a year and paying $2k a month for housing that’s pretty much half of your take home income right there, now imagine making 35k and finding a place to rent AND paying your bills!

[FlashUNC]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Responses to each in red.

What ever would we do without the rich people? They've made everything better throughout the history of human civilization.

The rest is just callous hand-waving. Next time just post some choice quotes from any Rand novel. It'll at least make for more interesting reading.

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

What ever would we do without the rich people? They've made everything better throughout the history of human civilization.

The rest is just callous hand-waving. Next time just post some choice quotes from any Rand novel. It'll at least make for more interesting reading.

Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make more money bro!

[William]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

So what happens when you have a place like SF and people making under 45k a year are truly priced out of affording housing because of the free market, so they move, but also don’t choose to commute to work there since they can make the same amount of money somewhere else but also afford to live there? Who will staff the coffee shops? Who will work at the gas station? Who will work at the grocery store? You can’t entirely support a community with high paid tech workers can you? If you’re making 70k a year and paying $2k a month for housing that’s pretty much half of your take home income right there, now imagine making 35k and finding a place to rent AND paying your bills!

Well, one thing you end up with is a certain percentage of working poor who are homeless. You see a bit of that in places like SF and Seattle.





W.

[kppolich]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make more money bro!

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

It is your choice, as a human to stay or go in any situation.

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

You have a point but it doesn’t change the fact that a society / economy requires a large amount of people working in lower skilled jobs and they have to live somewhere, as per my above post what do you think happens when there’s nobody that can afford to do basic jobs?

[spacemen3]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

It is your choice, as a human to stay or go in any situation.

Or just bus in your cheap labor. That is called Apartheid.

[kppolich]

Originally Posted by mtechnica

You have a point but it doesn’t change the fact that a society / economy requires a large amount of people working in lower skilled jobs and they have to live somewhere, as per my above post what do you think happens when there’s nobody that can afford to do basic jobs?

Then those basic jobs go away, are replaced by machines, or are replaced by someone who is willing to work for less. Sound familiar?

[mtechnica]

Originally Posted by kppolich

Then those basic jobs go away, are replaced by machines, or are replaced by someone who is willing to work for less. Sound familiar?

But not every job is disposable, able to be automated, or has people lined up to work for nothing.

[Davist]

Originally Posted by William

Well, one thing you end up with is a certain percentage of working poor who are homeless. You see a bit of that in places like SF and Seattle.

A bit? Understatement of the year.. I'm sure we've all seen the public poop map/app, etc. SF has really gone downhill (go there 6-7x/year for business, tech adjacent). Just in Seattle last week, I'd think there's SOME working homeless poor, but seems much better than SF, though I don't go to Seattle as often, so I may be out to lunch.

I lived in the Bay Area from '94-'04 (Fremont). We left due to job opportunity in PA and have found quality of life much better here.

I work with many of the name brand internet giants, and even their folks are leaving, when given options. Some senior people I work with at Google (global responsibilities) live in NoVA and ATL areas and are much happier for it. (yes, per previous MtView is "stuck in amber").