|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 15:33:55 GMT
I think part of the difference is that we ALL make mistakes (or even on-purpose stupid decisions) sometimes. For the poor, that one bad decision can put them into a hole too deep to escape; for those who can financially absorb a mistake (or two or three), it becomes just another life lesson, and they go on their merry way. My DH got a parking ticket recently - he paid for metered parking (we don't have individual meters here), put his receipt in the windshield, and went to work. Turns out he parked in a spot for commercial vehicles only. Bye-bye $95. It was a mistake, not a calculated risk. It happens. Thank God we can absorb it. The chocolate martini question is one that interests me. I had a roommate who got laid off and was frantic. Shortly thereafter, she came home with a new shirt from a fancy boutique in town. It was a plain t-shirt, to my eyes barely distinguishable from Fruit of the Loom, and it had cost $50 - I was horrified. I think it came from a sense of hopelessness about the future, a carpe diem attitude: "Nothing's going to get better, so I may as well treat myself now while there's still usable credit on the card..." Of course, from my perspective, it looked like she was guaranteeing that nothing would get better by making stupid purchases. (I'm happy to say I was wrong - she got another job, and things went fine from there.) I do think that the chocolate martinis (or overpriced t-shirts or other seemingly meaningless spending) can be a sign that the person really doesn't see a viable future. It can also be a sign of immaturity, an adolescent instant-gratification mentality - it must be hard to change someone's perspective out of either one of those places. It's so easy to see as a comfortable outsider. This whole topic is fascinating to me. I think the hopelessness has a lot to do with it. My best friend (we are speaking again) and his family recently had to move out of the duplex they were living in. All the tenants did, because the owner of the home went into foreclosure and the bank took ownership and planned to renovate because the apartments were in such bad shape. I'll be surprised if anything is left except the frame work. However, due to a back and forth with the bank, they didn't have to pay rent on any of the 3 apartments that they occupied for 8 months because of the fight over who the rent went to. In May all the tenants were given to the end of June to find a place and move. My best friend asked about all the rent money they had supposed to be putting back into a savings account just in case...they had spent everything. At the casinos. They would have had over 30,000 just from the rent had they actually saved it. Suddenly they were in a position of having to move, having little time, and absolutely nothing for security and first months rent. It would have been one thing if they had used the time they weren't paying rent, and put that money towards paying off debt, but they actually increased debt, and the father is still having to file bankruptcy. So they kept saying, that all their paychecks in June were going to be put aside for the new place...Come a week and a half before they have to move...none of them had put that money back. Had a cousin of theirs not loaned them the 7500 needed to get the house they got, they wouldn't have had any options. Not only that, but the Friday before the move...knowing that some of the furniture needed professional movers, knowing they needed to rent a moving van...they went to the casinos...and spent everything. Friends stepped in to help with the moving van and other family to get the movers. I still have a few hundred dollars they have to pay me back from April. No one wanted to see them in the streets, but it was definitely a war of do we help or don't we help. I think they just didn't care at that point.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jul 14, 2015 15:34:32 GMT
I get so irritated when driving through some of our poorer neighborhoods. There is a paycheck advance/title lending place on EVERY CORNER. I can't figure out how those people get around usury laws. Once you get started on one of these loans, you are in a hole that you will have a very difficult time digging your way out of. I hate that these types of businesses prey on the poor. sadly, that is where their target demographic is. you won't see them in wealthy neighborhoods because the lending places there are called Banks. you will probably see $1 Chinese fast food places in poorer neighborhoods amidst other fast food places. try and find a large supermarket with healthier food choices and it will be hard. you will probably also find a bunch of prepaid cell phone stores, dollar sundry stores and liquor stores/corner markets.
I once heard someone say that there is a culture to poverty just as there is a culture to wealth. I can't help but think there is truth in that.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 15:55:13 GMT
I get so irritated when driving through some of our poorer neighborhoods. There is a paycheck advance/title lending place on EVERY CORNER. I can't figure out how those people get around usury laws. Once you get started on one of these loans, you are in a hole that you will have a very difficult time digging your way out of. I hate that these types of businesses prey on the poor. sadly, that is where their target demographic is. you won't see them in wealthy neighborhoods because the lending places there are called Banks. you will probably see $1 Chinese fast food places in poorer neighborhoods amidst other fast food places. try and find a large supermarket with healthier food choices and it will be hard. you will probably also find a bunch of prepaid cell phone stores, dollar sundry stores and liquor stores/corner markets.
I once heard someone say that there is a culture to poverty just as there is a culture to wealth. I can't help but think there is truth in that.
I totally agree with you, and funny enough, I was mentally going through the checklist of my mental map in an area that I'm familiar with near me, and with a 2 block span, I see all of those stores you mentioned...(although I am a huge fan of the dollar tree, especially now that they have added groceries and many name brands at that.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Jul 14, 2015 16:02:00 GMT
I do think that the chocolate martinis (or overpriced t-shirts or other seemingly meaningless spending) can be a sign that the person really doesn't see a viable future. It can also be a sign of immaturity, an adolescent instant-gratification mentality - it must be hard to change someone's perspective out of either one of those places. It's so easy to see as a comfortable outsider. First off I'll say that I've made my fair share of stupid money decisions in my life, so I'm not immune. But sometimes things seem so glaringly obvious that I wonder why the person in question can't see it for themselves. Here's an example. A friend of mine is 60 years old, works full time and I would imagine she is fairly well paid for what she does (tenured SPED teacher with a master's degree in a large metro area). She lives with and takes care of her almost 90 year old mom who has dementia in the mom's house. Mom now needs to go to an adult daycare because she can't be left home alone anymore, and the cost for this is around $2K per month. These two have lived together for years and their money is more or less commingled. My friend is having a hard time coming up with the funds to pay for her mom's care now. She worries constantly about money becoming increasingly tight, and understandably so, because at some point her mom will have to be moved to a place with a higher level of 24 hour care which will be even MORE expensive. What blows me away are the many little money saving things she could do but doesn't, like the fact that she still shops at the "boutique" grocery store when it's further away and everything costs 25% more than at the discount grocery store that is closer, or that she still pretty regularly buys many things she really doesn't need and doesn't have the space to store (house is full, garage is full, basement is full and she will NEED to downsize in the very near future once the house has to be sold to pay for mom's care, so why add to THAT burden), and other things like that. She should be selling off stuff at this point and not buying more, but that's another issue entirely. To me, it seems like a no-brainer, buy the stuff you really need as cheaply as possible and cut the wants down to a bare minimum, at least until the financial situation has stabilized. Then some of the true emergencies like, "OMG, I had to replace the brakes on my car and it cost $500!" Or, "Holy crap, the 30 year old dryer died and now we need to get a new one..." wouldn't be nearly as devastating. On the one hand, I do feel for her because she's stuck in a tough spot with caring for her mom with very little external support and it IS stressful. I get that. But on the other hand, you (general you) do have to use your head too and make the most of the easy changes like shopping at the cheap grocery store before you're stuck making the hard ones like packing up and moving after living in the same place for 40 years because you can't afford to live in your house.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 23:53:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 16:17:43 GMT
See, I don't have any problem with gentrification. The neighborhoods are usually crime-ridden, run down and derelict. The first city that comes to mind to me that needs this badly is Detroit. For me it comes down to was the apartment building in Healdsburg for sale? Was it run down? How much money was going to be needed to bring it up to code and refurbish the building. The company or in many cases individuals who purchase these derelict properties have to sink quite a bit of money into them, and deserve to see a return on their investment. In the end, these communities actually get better, crime rates go down, schools and services improve, parks and community gardens are planted, and this to me is a good thing. I also was seeing that a report by Columbia University in NYC gentrified neighborhoods found that these neighborhoods were less likely to see the original inhabitants move than were similar neighborhoods not undergoing gentrification. Something like 15% less likely. No one wants to live in a bad neighborhood. But they will continue to be bad unless new owners come in with the resources to purchase and fix them up. No one is going to do that, without deserving a return on that investment. One question. Where do the people who are being displaced by gentrification go? Unless one owns their home very few can afford to live in their neighborhood once it has gone through gentrification. So where do these folks go?
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 16:43:49 GMT
Krazy - The problem is, that statistics don't prove that is happening. The Myth of GentrificationThe question is, is it better to just continue to let these neighborhoods decline, fall apart from disrepair, become increasingly dangerous, or have people legally purchase property on the free market, move in and make these neighborhoods better. The people who are renting there can't afford to purchase the properties, so someone has to do it.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jul 14, 2015 16:51:37 GMT
I love the dollar tree and 99 cent only stores too but in some poorer neighborhoods, it's not even the "name brand" dollar stores. they have 98 cent stores and other knock offs.
lets not forget all of the auto repair places too and the corner car lots that charge people with bad credit or no 20-30% financing for cars that have 200,000 miles on them. there was a great Los Angeles Times article about these car lots and how they make their money when the poor people can't afford the payments and they repossess the cars. some dealers are reselling cars 2-3-4 times and making money from the crazy high interest. just another thing poor people can't get a break on.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 17:10:39 GMT
I love the dollar tree and 99 cent only stores too but in some poorer neighborhoods, it's not even the "name brand" dollar stores. they have 98 cent stores and other knock offs. lets not forget all of the auto repair places too and the corner car lots that charge people with bad credit or no 20-30% financing for cars that have 200,000 miles on them. there was a great Los Angeles Times article about these car lots and how they make their money when the poor people can't afford the payments and they repossess the cars. some dealers are reselling cars 2-3-4 times and making money from the crazy high interest. just another thing poor people can't get a break on. Yeah, not so much a big fan of those dollar stores. And yup, the neighborhood I'm thinking of has several of those car lots as well. Plus the check cashing places, and the pawn shops. But they also have the great little bodegas and the mom and pop corner stores, and the little out of the way restaurants serving ethnic cuisine. But I know of many of those closing due to the crime rates driving away business, and not due to the influx of Starbucks and the Gentrifiers.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 14, 2015 17:18:18 GMT
A few months ago, I heard a couple stories out of a really interesting series on Marketplace Money Report (on NPR) about gentrification... the people doing the stories had their office in the neighborhood of Highland Park in Los Angeles, and did their stories over time as the neighborhood changed, "getting a street's eye view of gentrification in progress." more info here if anyone is interested: York & Fig
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 23:53:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 17:19:51 GMT
Krazy - The problem is, that statistics don't prove that is happening. The Myth of GentrificationThe question is, is it better to just continue to let these neighborhoods decline, fall apart from disrepair, become increasingly dangerous, or have people legally purchase property on the free market, move in and make these neighborhoods better. The people who are renting there can't afford to purchase the properties, so someone has to do it. Tech Boom Forces a Ruthless Gentrification in SF
This article was written a year ago. Since then it has gotten worse. At one point these displaced people could have moved to counties surrounding SF and find affordable housing. No more. The rents and overall cost of housing is skyrocketing there as well. And the cost to commute to SF is not cheap. And that is why the investors bought the apt building in Healdsburg was to take advantage of the skyrocketing rents. So I say again. Where are these people suppose to go? I read the other day the number of homeless families in this area is growing faster than anytime in the past. Homeless meaning they are living with other family members, in their cars, or in cheap hotels because they can't find a place to live they can afford. These are working people who can't find affordable housing. And the scary thing is this is starting to spread to other parts of the country.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 14, 2015 17:36:24 GMT
I agree. I also think that if they have gone through cycles of unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc. before, they may think "$9.00 isn't going to save me from falling back there again, so for right now, I'm going to enjoy this before I have absolutely nothing again."
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 17:50:27 GMT
Krazy - The problem is, that statistics don't prove that is happening. The Myth of GentrificationThe question is, is it better to just continue to let these neighborhoods decline, fall apart from disrepair, become increasingly dangerous, or have people legally purchase property on the free market, move in and make these neighborhoods better. The people who are renting there can't afford to purchase the properties, so someone has to do it. Tech Boom Forces a Ruthless Gentrification in SF
This article was written a year ago. Since then it has gotten worse. At one point these displaced people could have moved to counties surrounding SF and find affordable housing. No more. The rents and overall cost of housing is skyrocketing there as well. And the cost to commute to SF is not cheap. And that is why the investors bought the apt building in Healdsburg was to take advantage of the skyrocketing rents. So I say again. Where are these people suppose to go? I read the other day the number of homeless families in this area is growing faster than anytime in the past. Homeless meaning they are living with other family members, in their cars, or in cheap hotels because they can't find a place to live they can afford. These are working people who can't find affordable housing. And the scary thing is this is starting to spread to other parts of the country. As the article stated, SF is in a unique situation because of it's location, and inability to expand. And I feel for those people being displaced. But here's the questions that come up: 1. Does the property owner not have a right to sell their property? 2. Does an individual or business not have the right to purchase that property at the asking price? 3. Does an individual or business who purchases a property not have the right to do with it as they see fit, including renovating, living in or selling and seeing a return on their investment? I see in all these articles the exclusionary statements regarding: invaders, forcing out the rightful tenants, hipsters, etc. Why does it matter WHO these people are, where they work (silicon valley), how much money they make, etc. The USA is still a free nation, with free enterprise and the ability to live and work where you want. If you answer yes to the above questions, then you can't be against gentrification. If you answer no to the above questions you can't be for freedom.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jul 14, 2015 18:11:27 GMT
I agree. I also think that if they have gone through cycles of unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc. before, they may think "$9.00 isn't going to save me from falling back there again, so for right now, I'm going to enjoy this before I have absolutely nothing again." This is very true. It's a matter of perspective. If you KNOW that you can save and save and save and end up staying in poverty anyway, why bother? A goal of $1000 is unattainable to many people, so what's the point? And you may save up $200 only to need it for an emergency car repair or to help a friend keep the power on, etc. So you are going to save all your money but never reach the goal - and you'll also never get to enjoy any simple luxuries either. So work work work work work and never ever have any enjoyment. In the end $9 really isn't going to make a huge difference - but it does make life somewhat more enjoyable. Picture a middle class person talking to a millionaire. The millionaire wonders why the middle class person doesn't just "save up" to buy a fancy $60K car instead of driving a $20K car. After all, if you would just give up the Starbucks, buying new clothes, go out drinking only once a month instead of every weekend, going out to eat and Netflix each month, you could probably afford that fancy car! But really, would you want to? Knowing that you are giving up all of these things just to get something a little better would make most people decide that the nicer car wasn't really worth the sacrifice. In the case of poor people, it's worse - the middle class person knows that they CAN get a car of some sort, somewhere along the $20K-60K spectrum. Saving a little COULD get them a $30K car. But if you're in poverty, the gap between being there and getting out can be so insurmountable and difficult that it may not seem worthwhile. And there's no guarantee that you'll actually get there.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jul 14, 2015 18:20:44 GMT
from inside the trenches...the kids who grow in in sf have a hard time moving from home (I have one) the people who complain most about gentrification have limited historical memories...mostly cause they are not from here. no one complains about the lack of irish and italian families in the castro..oh wait..they were gentrified out 40 yrs ago....
rent control has made things more difficult..no one moves ever. prop 13 made things worse...as homeowners don't move either.
lots of money chasing real estate...someone is going to lose. the market goes up something like 10-20 per cent per month!!
most of this complaining is in the "cool neighborhoods" of mission, noe, etc... the mission was scary 20 yrs ago..now it is a bit safer. no one complains about the changes of the Sunset neighborhood..which used to be white middle class and is now asian middle class.
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Jul 14, 2015 18:30:54 GMT
gentrification is fine and well for those coming in and scooping up property at the lower price. they revitalize the neighborhood to the benefit of their property values. me, as a homeowner, I would always want less desirable surrounding areas to be gentrified. but gentrification has the opposite affect on the poor. the nicer neighborhood brings with it more expensive stores and cost of living in that gentrified neighborhood. when their local market gets turned into a Whole Foods, much longer can afford to live there? the poverty is solved by the gentrification, it just moves to a different place.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 14, 2015 18:37:12 GMT
Tech Boom Forces a Ruthless Gentrification in SF
This article was written a year ago. Since then it has gotten worse. At one point these displaced people could have moved to counties surrounding SF and find affordable housing. No more. The rents and overall cost of housing is skyrocketing there as well. And the cost to commute to SF is not cheap. And that is why the investors bought the apt building in Healdsburg was to take advantage of the skyrocketing rents. So I say again. Where are these people suppose to go? I read the other day the number of homeless families in this area is growing faster than anytime in the past. Homeless meaning they are living with other family members, in their cars, or in cheap hotels because they can't find a place to live they can afford. These are working people who can't find affordable housing. And the scary thing is this is starting to spread to other parts of the country. As the article stated, SF is in a unique situation because of it's location, and inability to expand. And I feel for those people being displaced. But here's the questions that come up: 1. Does the property owner not have a right to sell their property? 2. Does an individual or business not have the right to purchase that property at the asking price? 3. Does an individual or business who purchases a property not have the right to do with it as they see fit, including renovating, living in or selling and seeing a return on their investment? I see in all these articles the exclusionary statements regarding: invaders, forcing out the rightful tenants, hipsters, etc. Why does it matter WHO these people are, where they work (silicon valley), how much money they make, etc. The USA is still a free nation, with free enterprise and the ability to live and work where you want. If you answer yes to the above questions, then you can't be against gentrification. If you answer no to the above questions you can't be for freedom. oh, jonda. There IS wiggle room in between those two extremes. I want people to be able to buy and sell their property, invest and make money as they like, and I also want to see affordable housing for the lower-income working people in cities with a high cost of living. How about affordable housing set-asides for each new development or redevelopment project, with city or state contributions to ease the blow? I believe the government is in place to help ALL citizens, and that means poor people, too. I don't believe the purpose of the government is just to defend our shores and then get out of the way. (Just trying to forestall arguments I already see headed my way.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 23:53:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 18:48:56 GMT
As the article stated, SF is in a unique situation because of it's location, and inability to expand. And I feel for those people being displaced. But here's the questions that come up: 1. Does the property owner not have a right to sell their property? 2. Does an individual or business not have the right to purchase that property at the asking price? 3. Does an individual or business who purchases a property not have the right to do with it as they see fit, including renovating, living in or selling and seeing a return on their investment? I see in all these articles the exclusionary statements regarding: invaders, forcing out the rightful tenants, hipsters, etc. Why does it matter WHO these people are, where they work (silicon valley), how much money they make, etc. The USA is still a free nation, with free enterprise and the ability to live and work where you want. If you answer yes to the above questions, then you can't be against gentrification. If you answer no to the above questions you can't be for freedom. You are dancing around the question instead of answering it. Yes SF is unique. However I said in the past people who could no longer afford to live in SF could move to other areas like the East Bay or more specificly Oakland. But no longer. Oakland is facing its own version of gentrification and forcing long time residents to find a new affordable place to live never mind providing an option of affordable housing from those forced to move out of SF. And so on and so. And it is no longer unique to SF. My friend in Seattle tells me the same thing is happening up her way. i don't have a problem with gentrification however I do have a problem with one of the consequences and that is once a neighborhood has been gentrified where do the long term residents, who don't own their homes, and can no longer afford to live in this newly up scaled neighborhoods go? It's easy to say "oh just move to another neighborhood you can afford to live in." But as its being proved over and over again these affordable neighborhoods are becoming no longer affordable. So where do these folks go? i'm not trying to be a pain about getting an answer about this but it is a very real problem that I'm seeing all around me. And the question no one seems to want answer is where are displaced people to go? Keeping in mind a lot of these displaced people are the very people who work in the jobs that provide the goods and services that the high paid techies expect when they live in their newly up scaled neighborhoods. For the record I don't have a problem with the techies living in SF. But I don't think anyone realized how gentification of neighborhoods would snowball and all the ramifications associated with it. There are two options that I see. One pay these folks a wage so they can continue to live in these areas or make it mandatory that for every let's say 5 luxury units there is one affordable unit. Neither is popular for obvious reasons. So there we are.
|
|
|
Post by apeacalledliz on Jul 14, 2015 19:08:43 GMT
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Ben Franklin
It absolutely is a complex problem, only made more complex by government largess and "help". Government traps people in poverty. There is no way around that fact, and it only gets worse with each and every new "helping hand" extended. We have spent two generations now, telling people that they won't be poor anymore if we just pass one more welfare program. Trillions of dollars later, we have more poor than ever, and are making more every single day. We have also been telling them that they SHOULDN'T work harder, because if they work harder, they will lose that government money, subsidies, programs, SNAP, WIC, child care credits, cell phones etc, and will probably end up with less money than they had when they worked fewer hours or a job that required no skill set. So why would many poor people choose to work harder, even though they WANT to, when doing so will cause them to harm their families when government money is withdrawn? It is fact, that in many states, welfare programs pay as much as a $15/hr job. Tax free. So why would someone bust their butt at a minimum wage job, to learn the skills needed to advance to better jobs, when advancing to those jobs would cost them so much money?? In short, You are ignoring, as bleeding hearts are wont to do, human nature. Human nature will always dictate that humans will take the "easy" way, even if it is not in their best interests in the long run. Once upon a time, it was shameful to be on government welfare, or even to have to ask for help from your church. Now it is almost a badge of honor. But we have eroded that very helpful notion of shame, because we decided that people shouldn't have their feelings hurt. We had to do away with actual food stamps, in favor of debit cards, so that people didn't feel shame in the grocery line. I am of the same opinion as Ben Franklin. Do not make it easy to stay poor. That is the cruelest form of "help" you can offer. And what of the people who aren't living on public assistance and are poor? What are we as a society doing for them, doing to help them? I was one of those people, we were one of those families, as little as 5 or 6 years ago. We lived paycheck to paycheck, a sick kid or god forbid a car repair was all it took to send us spiraling into a hole we didn't see anyway to dig ourselves out of. I had a panic attack everytime I slid my debit card at the grocery store, I left full grocery carts at the register because they wouldn't take my check this week, I hunted for bottles on the side of the road to get enough to buy milk. And when you are in that hole looking up at not even a pinpoint of light to give you hope you can overcome this, making bad decisions seem to be the only decisions you can make. Any tiny bit of extra money or hell windfall like your tax return is spent on fun new things to make the drudgery of your shitty rotten luck life seem a bit less shitty. Is that a bad decision? Yup. But it's totally understandable, when you haven't been out to eat in over a year and you're craving that delicious mexican restaurant you love and your kids all want the latest and greatest new toy that everyone else in their class has had since Christmas, and you all need new shoes and underwear, and well it would be nice for each kid to have a new outfit not one from Goodwill... you will probably pay off a few overdue bills(you always have overdue bills) and then that extra money is gone and you go back to paycheck to paycheck life wondering where the money for rent and food is going to come from. You could have saved that 1500.00 and used it to build a cushion but NO ONE tells you or shows you that there is a light the top of this hole and there is a way to NOT always be poor, you just assume that this is what life is, life is hard everyone says and you assume that is what they mean. You assume that you deserve to live like this, that regardless of the fact that you and your husband work opposite shifts so that someone is always home with the kids, that you never do end up buying that new underwear and use that money to put a little food in the freezer, that you have never been on a vacation, you don't leach off the government you are doing what you are supposed to do that somehow this is what you deserve. So you spend extra when you get it because you don't know when you might get extra again, and you feel guilty the whole time you're doing it. Being poor is expensive, there are fees for everything you need to do, need a car loan to buy that pos beater...18% interest, don't have a checking account because your credit is such shit you have to pay to cash your check every week, get behind on your bills because you don't actually make enough between your two jobs to actually afford to have heat, a roof over your head and food...get pulled over and fined because you couldn't afford to get your car registered on time, or you couldn't register your car because you need an inspection and it needs a thousand dollars worth of work to pass, rent is more expensive because you are high risk. Some people tell you to move so you don't have to drive, but where do you get the money to move? How do you move when you literally can't buy milk? And how do you get an apartment when you have an eviction on your record, you were lucky to find the hovel of a place you are in. I would love to see people like that helped, shown how to make it. We finally were able to pull ourselves out of that horrible place by shear luck... literally had a year or so where nothing went wrong and we were able to get ahead of things and that allowed us to come out of survival mode and make a plan and that lead to more success, and husband got a raise and OT was reinstated and my business took off and things are looking up. But wouldn't it be grand if there was a way to reach those people living in that pit of poverty, working their butts off to get ahead but never moving forward to help them, to show them that baby steps forward really will get you there, that your past bad decisions do not have to define you. For those reasons, for those people(and there are lots of the working poor out there) I am unwilling to defund social nets, I am unwilling to judge the Mom in line at the grocery store using her SNAP card, I am unwilling to call poor people lazy or blame them for their place in life unless I am also willing to stand up and help show them how to make it better.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,987
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Jul 14, 2015 19:49:25 GMT
Tech Boom Forces a Ruthless Gentrification in SF
This article was written a year ago. Since then it has gotten worse. At one point these displaced people could have moved to counties surrounding SF and find affordable housing. No more. The rents and overall cost of housing is skyrocketing there as well. And the cost to commute to SF is not cheap. And that is why the investors bought the apt building in Healdsburg was to take advantage of the skyrocketing rents. So I say again. Where are these people suppose to go? I read the other day the number of homeless families in this area is growing faster than anytime in the past. Homeless meaning they are living with other family members, in their cars, or in cheap hotels because they can't find a place to live they can afford. These are working people who can't find affordable housing. And the scary thing is this is starting to spread to other parts of the country. As the article stated, SF is in a unique situation because of it's location, and inability to expand. And I feel for those people being displaced. But here's the questions that come up: 1. Does the property owner not have a right to sell their property? 2. Does an individual or business not have the right to purchase that property at the asking price? 3. Does an individual or business who purchases a property not have the right to do with it as they see fit, including renovating, living in or selling and seeing a return on their investment? I see in all these articles the exclusionary statements regarding: invaders, forcing out the rightful tenants, hipsters, etc. Why does it matter WHO these people are, where they work (silicon valley), how much money they make, etc. The USA is still a free nation, with free enterprise and the ability to live and work where you want. If you answer yes to the above questions, then you can't be against gentrification. If you answer no to the above questions you can't be for freedom. I agree with Jonda on this point. As painful as gentrification may be for some people, I think the market eventually catches up. If people who make minimum wage cannot work there because of housing prices, then the wages will naturally rise to fill the demand. Then the workers will be able to afford either to live in the community or within a reasonable commuting distance to make a job there cost-effective. If the prices do not rise to attract these workers, the residents will start doing without the services or find alternatives. If the lack of these services or their high costs become too detrimental, then the cost of housing will go down because the neighborhoods will be less desirable. A combination of increased wages and lower housing costs will eventually create the "right" balance for that area that will sustain it. It may be a long and painful process before that happens, though. And government interventions won't necessarily make it any better.
|
|
bethany102399
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,534
Oct 11, 2014 3:17:29 GMT
|
Post by bethany102399 on Jul 14, 2015 19:59:17 GMT
Nodding my head all the way through your post. BTDT, and hanging on to the ladder up for dear life.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 20:03:30 GMT
As the article stated, SF is in a unique situation because of it's location, and inability to expand. And I feel for those people being displaced. But here's the questions that come up: 1. Does the property owner not have a right to sell their property? 2. Does an individual or business not have the right to purchase that property at the asking price? 3. Does an individual or business who purchases a property not have the right to do with it as they see fit, including renovating, living in or selling and seeing a return on their investment? I see in all these articles the exclusionary statements regarding: invaders, forcing out the rightful tenants, hipsters, etc. Why does it matter WHO these people are, where they work (silicon valley), how much money they make, etc. The USA is still a free nation, with free enterprise and the ability to live and work where you want. If you answer yes to the above questions, then you can't be against gentrification. If you answer no to the above questions you can't be for freedom. oh, jonda. There IS wiggle room in between those two extremes. I want people to be able to buy and sell their property, invest and make money as they like, and I also want to see affordable housing for the lower-income working people in cities with a high cost of living. How about affordable housing set-asides for each new development or redevelopment project, with city or state contributions to ease the blow? I believe the government is in place to help ALL citizens, and that means poor people, too. I don't believe the purpose of the government is just to defend our shores and then get out of the way. (Just trying to forestall arguments I already see headed my way.) Oh Lucy LOL. I'm not opposed to that. However, there is often so much red-tape and bureaucratic nonsense involved in affordable housing projects. I'm also not just talking about big real estate companies coming in and bull-dozing everything and building highrises, but more affluent people purchasing houses or buildings and renting them, refurbishing them or living in them. I'm not sure what percentage of "gentrification" is one or the other. LOL...you know my libertarian heart .
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jul 14, 2015 20:08:42 GMT
You are dancing around the question instead of answering it. Yes SF is unique. However I said in the past people who could no longer afford to live in SF could move to other areas like the East Bay or more specificly Oakland. But no longer. Oakland is facing its own version of gentrification and forcing long time residents to find a new affordable place to live never mind providing an option of affordable housing from those forced to move out of SF. And so on and so. And it is no longer unique to SF. My friend in Seattle tells me the same thing is happening up her way. i don't have a problem with gentrification however I do have a problem with one of the consequences and that is once a neighborhood has been gentrified where do the long term residents, who don't own their homes, and can no longer afford to live in this newly up scaled neighborhoods go? It's easy to say "oh just move to another neighborhood you can afford to live in." But as its being proved over and over again these affordable neighborhoods are becoming no longer affordable. So where do these folks go? i'm not trying to be a pain about getting an answer about this but it is a very real problem that I'm seeing all around me. And the question no one seems to want answer is where are displaced people to go? Keeping in mind a lot of these displaced people are the very people who work in the jobs that provide the goods and services that the high paid techies expect when they live in their newly up scaled neighborhoods. For the record I don't have a problem with the techies living in SF. But I don't think anyone realized how gentification of neighborhoods would snowball and all the ramifications associated with it. There are two options that I see. One pay these folks a wage so they can continue to live in these areas or make it mandatory that for every let's say 5 luxury units there is one affordable unit. Neither is popular for obvious reasons. So there we are. The fact is that gentrification is different in each city it happens in. In NY they didn't see large amounts of displacement in gentrified neighborhoods, in fact, displacement was 15% lower in gentrified neighborhoods than in non-gentrified neighborhoods. I think we are also looking at gentrification from two perspectives. I'm looking at it from an individual perspective, and you are seeing it from a more corporate perspective. I'm not dancing around the issue, I'm just not really sure how big it really is, as there haven't been a lot of studies done, and it is really difficult to pinpoint displacement based on gentrification and displacement based on natural migration. This also ties back into the whole section 8 housing situation. No one wants it in their neighborhood or in their backyard, because it inherently brings criminal activity. Which reduces property values, which causes people to move out of the neighborhoods and move to new neighborhoods without the criminal activity, and the cycle starts all over again.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 14, 2015 20:10:17 GMT
I do.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jul 14, 2015 20:18:32 GMT
Public housing or Assisted housing is a trap! Once you are in it it is extremly hard to get out. The gap between living in assisted housing or section 8 housing and affording your own apartment of the same size is too big to jump. I deal with this all the time. And you can't just go out and take that $36000 a year secretarial job if you land it because it's not enough to pay for food plus a 2 br apt for your kids. So if you better yourself with a better paying job, you can better yourself into being homeless.
Federal poverty levels do not account for housing cost differences place to place.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 23:53:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 20:20:13 GMT
I agree with Jonda on this point. As painful as gentrification may be for some people, I think the market eventually catches up. If people who make minimum wage cannot work there because of housing prices, then the wages will naturally rise to fill the demand. Then the workers will be able to afford either to live in the community or within a reasonable commuting distance to make a job there cost-effective. If the prices do not rise to attract these workers, the residents will start doing without the services or find alternatives. If the lack of these services or their high costs become too detrimental, then the cost of housing will go down because the neighborhoods will be less desirable. A combination of increased wages and lower housing costs will eventually create the "right" balance for that area that will sustain it. It may be a long and painful process before that happens, though. And government interventions won't necessarily make it any better. "As painful as gentrification may be for some people". " Long and painful process". Maybe you are right that at some point the market will eventually catch up. But in the meantime what are folks to do who can't find an affordable place to live? And how long is "eventually". I would hate to think is this an "oh well type of thing because it's not happening to you so you shrug your shoulders and move on " feeling. I'm not picking on you specifically but sometimes I think we all need to step back and look at what we are writing before we push the "create post" button. I'm pretty sure you didn't want to come off as a callous person. I know I have spent more time then I should on this post but in good conscience I couldn't not comment on the 2 quotes I pulled from your post. And I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers but so be it.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 14, 2015 21:03:28 GMT
Picture a middle class person talking to a millionaire. The millionaire wonders why the middle class person doesn't just "save up" to buy a fancy $60K car instead of driving a $20K car. After all, if you would just give up the Starbucks, buying new clothes, go out drinking only once a month instead of every weekend, going out to eat and Netflix each month, you could probably afford that fancy car! But really, would you want to? Knowing that you are giving up all of these things just to get something a little better would make most people decide that the nicer car wasn't really worth the sacrifice. In the case of poor people, it's worse - the middle class person knows that they CAN get a car of some sort, somewhere along the $20K-60K spectrum. Saving a little COULD get them a $30K car. But if you're in poverty, the gap between being there and getting out can be so insurmountable and difficult that it may not seem worthwhile. And there's no guarantee that you'll actually get there. That was a really good point. Think how offended we would be if someone told us that after working 40 hours a week we couldn't do any one of those things you mentioned. And many of these people are actually working harder and longer hours than we (DH & I, not general we, because I'm sure some of you put in long, hard weeks.) are. And they don't really have the luxury for any little bit of frivolous spending to show for it. That's got to be incredibly depressing. And you know what, I'm someone who has to really work hard to avoid eating when I am depressed or upset. I mean it is a struggle, even though I know it's bad for me. And I bet some of these people feel that way about what they are buying sometimes. They might know that spending that extra 5 bucks is only going to make them feel better temporarily, and that in the long run it isn't good for them. But maybe they're just not at the point where they can fight the urge to do it anyway. Or maybe they usually do convince themselves not to do it, but occasionally they slip. We all struggle in life, and we all have ways of coping. Sometimes our coping mechanisms aren't what they should be. And I get that.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 14, 2015 21:06:33 GMT
I also wanted to comment on this bit: "If people who make minimum wage cannot work there because of housing prices, then the wages will naturally rise to fill the demand."
^^^ you mean the service-oriented jobs like the ones at the new Starbucks, Whole Foods, tea shops, yoga places, etc. that will open up, right? Don't most of those places charge-- minimum wage??
I can't see that sentence about wages 'naturally rising' to fill the demand ever coming true; if it did, then people who work for minimum-level wages everywhere wouldn't have trouble making a living AND being able to afford decent food and decent housing, and we know that's simply not true. (see the links to the books posted on the other thread- Nickeled and Dimed was one of them; I can't remember the other one.)
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jul 14, 2015 21:33:21 GMT
other things that make SF unique...wages will never catch up to afford housing...right now, you would need to make something like $50 an hour. there is something like 20-30,000 housing units that are empty due to people not wanting to be landlords. there is maybe 5-10, 000 units unavailable because people can make more on airbnb. there is required fees from every development...build affordable housing or pay the fee,,,,but the govt developed affordable housing is not being built fast enough.
there were 10,000 new jobs and 2000 new units built last year. for an affordable (not affordable to poor person) units down the street...45 units built, 5500 families applied for the lottery. 7000 homeless people. my friend can't find someone to hire who drives...cause $14 an hour just doesn't cut it. and the tech people bring the bus system...which is good, keeps cars off the road...but bad, cause everyone can live in the city and not drive at all. 6000 people a day take the private buses to work...in addition to all who commute by train and private car.
the other reason the market will never balance out is that so many buyers here are from overseas...paying cash and buying second/third homes. it is not people who need a primary residence and work and live here. they don't care if starbucks can't find employees.
|
|
|
Post by Pahina722 on Jul 14, 2015 21:47:28 GMT
I also wanted to comment on this bit: "If people who make minimum wage cannot work there because of housing prices, then the wages will naturally rise to fill the demand." ^^^ you mean the service-oriented jobs like the ones at the new Starbucks, Whole Foods, tea shops, yoga places, etc. that will open up, right? Don't most of those places charge-- minimum wage?? I can't see that sentence about wages 'naturally rising' to fill the demand ever coming true; if it did, then people who work for minimum-level wages everywhere wouldn't have trouble making a living AND being able to afford decent food and decent housing, and we know that's simply not true. (see the links to the books posted on the other thread- Nickeled and Dimed was one of them; I can't remember the other one.) But in other affluent areas, wages for lower skilled jobs have risen when employers couldn't get applicants for the lower wage. As an example, I was shocked 20 years ago to learn that my BIL was having difficulty getting receptionists for his dental practice even though he was paying $15/hour for new employees with no experience at all. He was having to up the salary again just to get applicants to walk in the door. To give you perspective, that's MORE than my college is paying skilled administrative assistants with 20 years of experience today. The difference is that BIL works in Ann Arbor, MI, while my college is located in one of the poorest counties in Florida. So clearly, wages do respond to supply. However, it's a slow process, and for those desperate to feed their families on minimum wage now, the idea that it MIGHT get better in a few years is no comfort. I get that. And I don't pretend to have an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Amelia Bedelia on Jul 14, 2015 22:13:20 GMT
Sorry lucyg I'm not going to give @lynlam a pass on her post. @lynlam needs to get out of that bubble she lives in and see the real world. First she is assuming that all poor people are "suckling at The Government teat". That's not true. @lynlam did you even read the article in the OP? No where did it say anything about the author taking government assistance. But it did say the author had 2 jobs. A lot of people are working two jobs to make ends meet that are not taking government assistance. What some people, like @lynlam, don't understand is the shit is about to hit the fan. "Gentrification" I think everyone will agree one of the most expensive places to live if not the most expensive place to live is The San Francisco Bay Area. Housing prices are very high. One of my ex co-workers got divorced last year. Her and her husband had a 2 bedroom 1 bath 100 year old house in SF they needed to sell as part of the divorce settlement. It sold in 7 days, multiple offers for $799,000. It was a cute house but nothing much was done to up-date the inside. It had a nice yard with an ok view. Rents start at $2,000 a month and go why up. SF is a rent controlled city but landlords have found whys to evict long term tenants so they can charge the way higher rents. Neighborhood after neighborhood is being gentrified forcing long term residents to leave SF. But the problem is the counties around SF are also being hit with high housing costs. Some will argue that homeowners and landlords have the right to get as much money as they can from their investment whether it's selling their house or renting apartments. Problem is has anyone given a thought to the people who are being displaced because of gentrification? Contrary to what @lynlam wants one to believe these folks are not sitting around "suckling on The Government Teat". They perform a necessary function to make the SF area a desirable place to live for folks that can afford to pay $799,000 for a 2 bed/1bath 100 year old house. Or for the tourists that flock to the Bay Area every year. These folks provide the services that people expect. Whether it's in shops, restaurants & bars, at the hotels. Getting your cars fixed or hiring a "handy man". Not all these jobs are union jobs. A lot are at minimum wage or just above. A thread was started I think yesterday because someone was not happy with a store because they took away a Customer Service Kiosk and she had to wait in a long line. Who knows why this store removed the customer service kiosk but imagine if the reason was because the store couldn't get enough people to work for them because what they are willing to pay these folks is not enough to pay the rent or mortgage? Apply that to restaurants etc. One has to work an awful lot of minimum wage or just above minimum wage hours to pay $2,000-3,000+ a month rent. And food and utilities and transportation. We have had a couple of debates on this board about raising the minimum age to $15 and many are against it because they feel they will have to pay more for these services or products. Maybe but at least one would have the option to decide IF they wanted to pay more for services and products instead of not having the services or products available. This is not just happening in the SF Bay Area but spreading to other areas of the country. My take away from this is as hard as it was for the author of the article its already a lot harder for folks now and will get even harder. There is always going to be minimum wage jobs and one can no longer assume that folks can work their way out of these jobs. The type of jobs in this country are changing due to technology and global markets. So @lynlam quit insulting "poor" people because nothing is as black and white as you try and make it. And if anyone should work harder it's you in understanding the complexity of this country we live in. It's not just minimum-wage service workers and laborers. I was very happy living in San Francisco, but could not afford to stay on my teacher salary. So I moved. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, nurses… They cannot afford to live in San Francisco either. DH is a professional with a PhD. We'll never be rich on his salary but we're stretched pretty tight in the SF Bay Area. Our rent is going up $300 starting next month. We've lived here for 5 years and have had regular increases annually, but the market value is going up so high. They decided to throw this increase at us all at once and it's going to e uncomfortable. We rarely eat out, we pinch pennies where we can. I think they're trying to price people out and get new tenants in at market value. We looked at moving but there's not a safe neighborhood that's close to public transportation, that also has low enough rent to make the hassle of moving worthwhile. So until DH finds a new job in another part of the country, we're stuck here. Can't save substantially, can't get ahead. All that education, and for what? We'll be fine in the long run. If we get in a bind, we're fortunate to have family that can help. It's just frustrating beyond belief.
|
|