The battle to save Silicon Valley's oldest trailer park(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
The battle to save Silicon Valley's oldest trailer park
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/tech-company-v-trailer-park-silicon-valley
8 comments
If you read the article, you would see that the city/county is offering to buy the trailer park for $39 million.
Why should they get a discount?
They haven't done negotiating yet...
No risk of litigation.
So, paying $16MM in "protection money" to the city is the answer, then?
It sounds counter intuitive, but preventing the owners from reusing their property increases uncertainty for anyone investing in existing low income communities.
While probably good for those few in the short run it could end up making the low income housing problem worse.
While probably good for those few in the short run it could end up making the low income housing problem worse.
Why are people entitled to low income housing in one of the most expensive areas to live in in the world.
People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street?
The bigger problem is that California has so little supply of housing relative to demand that prices are just astronomical.
The bigger problem is that California has so little supply of housing relative to demand that prices are just astronomical.
> People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street?
I think it's obvious that there are serious problems with supply and demand but to say a person's options are 'live in one of the most expensive areas in the world' or 'live on the street' is more than a little ridiculous.
There is pretty clearly the option of not living in an expensive place. Yes it might make a commute to the same job crazy, yes it's far from ideal, yes it's not necessary when looking at the system as a whole, but this idea that people are entitled to stay wherever they are just doesn't work out.
If someone was living in a hollywood mansion and couldn't afford it, people would say 'move somewhere cheaper'.
I think it's obvious that there are serious problems with supply and demand but to say a person's options are 'live in one of the most expensive areas in the world' or 'live on the street' is more than a little ridiculous.
There is pretty clearly the option of not living in an expensive place. Yes it might make a commute to the same job crazy, yes it's far from ideal, yes it's not necessary when looking at the system as a whole, but this idea that people are entitled to stay wherever they are just doesn't work out.
If someone was living in a hollywood mansion and couldn't afford it, people would say 'move somewhere cheaper'.
People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness. Homelessness is something that the people in that article actually express worry about.
The problem is not that people are entitled to housing that they can't afford. The problem is that humans need decent housing, and the housing price situation where they live is created by policy choices. Housing policy has generated this high-price dynamic that is leading to the removal of poor, low-income, and other vulnerable people, after changing the rules on them about where they can live.
Now, it's true that a trailer park is never going to be consistent with any policy that can effectively bring the supply/demand curve into line enough to supply decent and affordable housing.
The problem is not that people are entitled to housing that they can't afford. The problem is that humans need decent housing, and the housing price situation where they live is created by policy choices. Housing policy has generated this high-price dynamic that is leading to the removal of poor, low-income, and other vulnerable people, after changing the rules on them about where they can live.
Now, it's true that a trailer park is never going to be consistent with any policy that can effectively bring the supply/demand curve into line enough to supply decent and affordable housing.
> People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness.
This is another generalization that doesn't hold up in this particular situation.
This trailer park cost $830 a month 5 years ago.
Don't paint this as 'being cruel to humans' and 'human beings need a place to live'. Yes there are a lot of rough edges, but this idea that rising housing costs due to market pressures are some sort of inhuman dynamic in this extreme outlier situation isn't reasonable. People might have to move and ideally they would get some sort of money to help them do it as a deal with the developers.
To think that the way something was is the way it needs to be in the future is irrational.
This is another generalization that doesn't hold up in this particular situation.
This trailer park cost $830 a month 5 years ago.
Don't paint this as 'being cruel to humans' and 'human beings need a place to live'. Yes there are a lot of rough edges, but this idea that rising housing costs due to market pressures are some sort of inhuman dynamic in this extreme outlier situation isn't reasonable. People might have to move and ideally they would get some sort of money to help them do it as a deal with the developers.
To think that the way something was is the way it needs to be in the future is irrational.
Note that this is an article in which the people actually talk about their struggles with homelessness and their fears of becoming homeless.
I don't actually disagree that the trailer park should probably be torn down and be replaced with a denser condo development. And the property owner certainly has a right to sell the property to developers (gentrification would not be so problematic if renters had property rights in their home).
Rising housing costs is not at all due to some inhuman market pressure: it is a policy choice against densification. And surely to think that the way something was is the way it needs to be in the future is irrational. But shouldn't that be true for people who live in single-story houses also?
I don't actually disagree that the trailer park should probably be torn down and be replaced with a denser condo development. And the property owner certainly has a right to sell the property to developers (gentrification would not be so problematic if renters had property rights in their home).
Rising housing costs is not at all due to some inhuman market pressure: it is a policy choice against densification. And surely to think that the way something was is the way it needs to be in the future is irrational. But shouldn't that be true for people who live in single-story houses also?
> But shouldn't that be true for people who live in single-story houses also?
That isn't what the article is about.
That isn't what the article is about.
This regulatory problem exists regardless of which position you choose in this question. It could even be a bad idea if you want low income inhabitants to stay in a specific area.
“I don’t know what to tell you. I live down in San Jose. I mean, I can’t even afford Palo Alto.” - the trailer park owner
This legal battle has been going on for years. In that amount of time they could have built more affordable housing as a backup plan however Palo Alto has been stubborn about that. They portray this as a fight between a greedy landlord and low income residents but it's really caused by Palo Alto's stagnant zoning and land use policies.
How high do living expenses have to be before a place has trouble hiring low-income or blue collar employees? Or will there always be those who are willing to put in the travel time to fill them?
It's simple supply and demand. Look at Fort McMurray, where fast food workers currently earn about C$14/hr compared to around $11.50 in other cities across Canada, and was probably higher during the boom years.
When I was working at Netscape in 1996-1998, for the first 18 months I lived in Oakland, on 17th near Lake Merrit ($500/month). The commute was: Walk to Bart, Bart to 22nd (pre millbrae), Muni from 22nd to Caltrain, Caltrain (pre bullet) down to Mountain View, Shuttle to Whisman, Walk to Building. Mostly reverse this at night.
My commute was 2 hours in the morning, and 2 1/2 hours back at night. It was miserable, and I would never wish it on anyone. I feel for these people possibly losing their homes (some who have lived there for 30+ years!).
My commute was 2 hours in the morning, and 2 1/2 hours back at night. It was miserable, and I would never wish it on anyone. I feel for these people possibly losing their homes (some who have lived there for 30+ years!).
Are people losing their homes or are they getting their homes bought?
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but, the ground truth is there are people who've lived there for 30+ years and pay $1000/month for their home (which probably has a net value of $5k or less) - and when the trailer park shuts down, they really have nowhere to go.
So look, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college, I get economic impact of rent-control, and how it actually ends up hurting the lower socio economic strata - It's not like I'm ignorant of all these things.
It's just, at the end of the day - I can appreciate how it would suck to have your entire world ripped apart.
So look, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college, I get economic impact of rent-control, and how it actually ends up hurting the lower socio economic strata - It's not like I'm ignorant of all these things.
It's just, at the end of the day - I can appreciate how it would suck to have your entire world ripped apart.
I have a feeling Palo Alto's going to find the answer to this very soon.
The entire peninsula is unaffordable for low-income workers. Crossing the Dumbarton bridge is a ~30m commute in itself and costs $5/day. Downtown Palo Alto just instituted parking restrictions on the surrounding neighborhoods so low income commuters no longer even have a place to park.
The entire peninsula is unaffordable for low-income workers. Crossing the Dumbarton bridge is a ~30m commute in itself and costs $5/day. Downtown Palo Alto just instituted parking restrictions on the surrounding neighborhoods so low income commuters no longer even have a place to park.
There will be no inflection point. The process is gradual and is long under way.
To clean a house in the area can cost ~$150. Good nannies can make $50-60K a year. Plumbers are expensive. Gardeners are expensive. And so on. This is just basic economics.
Also, I think the commutes are somewhat blown-up. Plenty of cheap places in San Jose that aren't much more than 40 minutes away if you avoid rush hour.
To clean a house in the area can cost ~$150. Good nannies can make $50-60K a year. Plumbers are expensive. Gardeners are expensive. And so on. This is just basic economics.
Also, I think the commutes are somewhat blown-up. Plenty of cheap places in San Jose that aren't much more than 40 minutes away if you avoid rush hour.
> Also, I think the commutes are somewhat blown-up. Plenty of cheap places in San Jose that aren't much more than 40 minutes away if you avoid rush hour.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not 40 min is a reasonable commute, you don't get to determine if you avoid rush hour, and you probobly won't. So 40 min is at best a lower bound rather than what you would expect to see.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not 40 min is a reasonable commute, you don't get to determine if you avoid rush hour, and you probobly won't. So 40 min is at best a lower bound rather than what you would expect to see.
The pay goes up and they do grueling 3 hour commutes with commuter busses from cheaper places in the deep east bay, like tracey or stockton.
There's a good chance of a large percent of low-income and blue collar employees being replaced by machines. The issue is that we still use money as an allocative technology, which means we have a system where people have to work in order to live. This doesn't make sense any more and people don't actually have to work to live.
It's going to take quite a while before the restaurant waiters and dish washers, house cleaners, plumbers and gardeners of the valley will be replaced by machines though.
Very long time for all of them, yes, but marginal employees can be reduced through automation fairly quickly. Go from 3 people to 2 at a restaurant by using more pre-cooked food or automation, buy a better PoS/order management system to remove one waiter from front of house, etc.
You don't even need to fire anyone -- just hire more slowly than otherwise when things are growing, and potentially not replace people when they leave (although that's less scheduled).
You don't even need to fire anyone -- just hire more slowly than otherwise when things are growing, and potentially not replace people when they leave (although that's less scheduled).
Quite a while like a decade or two? That's not that long for the end of labor, a 10,000+ year human institution.
They should build a large multi-unit apartment building mostly for tech workers and set aside a number of units for the people who live in the trailer park now. That seems like the move to me.
So where do the current residents live for the year or two it takes you to build your new apartment building? How do you expect residents to be able to afford their rent doubling or tripling in the new building once it's built?
If the plot is being sold for $50 Million and Real Estate Developers are getting involved there's more than enough cash on the table to put several families up for a year or two especially if they're paying part of the rent.
So what happens after "a year or two"? Do you expect the new owners to agree to rent control in the new building for the families which used to live in the trailer park?
Yes, this is a large multiunit multistory multimillion dollar housing development for techworkers. They can handle having a few units for a few families, and they can build/budget with that in mind.
I'm not sure why you were downvoted -- I had exactly the same thought.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I shared this because the issue is affecting my area as well as SV, and I'm sure many other areas as well. I live in southeast Alaska, and our housing costs are some of the highest in the country as well. Here it's a mix of factors; we live right on the edge of the mountains, next to the ocean, so there's a shortage of land that's suitable for building. The problem is exacerbated by well-off people buying up large homes that sit vacant in the winter and developing lodges that are only used by tourists during the summer.
Just a few days ago there was a heated conversation on our community's facebook "chatters" group about how online shopping is hurting our community. Another local business is closing up shop, and people were encouraging others to shop locally whenever possible. "Encouraging" is a kind word; many were chastising anyone who talked about shopping through amazon. One person commented that he had grown up here, and lives on his fishing boat because he can't afford to buy a home. He says he buys as much as he can through amazon because it's the only way he can make ends meet. This is a guy who catches the "wild caught Alaska salmon" that many people ask for in nicer restaurants, or buy in fish markets like Pike Place in Seattle.
Our community is responding in some interesting ways, like helping people figure out how to build small homes that are easier to heat efficiently in the winter. We're looking at more efficient ways to use the land that's available for building. But all of this might be for nothing in the face of economic disparity; I wonder if we'll continue to sort things out, or if it will take a large-scale economic collapse to force the issue. I hope for the former, but I won't be surprised by the latter.
Just a few days ago there was a heated conversation on our community's facebook "chatters" group about how online shopping is hurting our community. Another local business is closing up shop, and people were encouraging others to shop locally whenever possible. "Encouraging" is a kind word; many were chastising anyone who talked about shopping through amazon. One person commented that he had grown up here, and lives on his fishing boat because he can't afford to buy a home. He says he buys as much as he can through amazon because it's the only way he can make ends meet. This is a guy who catches the "wild caught Alaska salmon" that many people ask for in nicer restaurants, or buy in fish markets like Pike Place in Seattle.
Our community is responding in some interesting ways, like helping people figure out how to build small homes that are easier to heat efficiently in the winter. We're looking at more efficient ways to use the land that's available for building. But all of this might be for nothing in the face of economic disparity; I wonder if we'll continue to sort things out, or if it will take a large-scale economic collapse to force the issue. I hope for the former, but I won't be surprised by the latter.
If this is so important to the culture of the city, let the city buy it for that price and maintain it as a living museum like Colonial Williamsburg dedicated to educating the public of the history and culture of trailer park lifestyle.