Life Inside the RVs of Silicon Valley
topic.com
topic.com
Well, I think I officially feel ashamed to be an American now.
I slept in a tent for nearly six years to work on getting healthier, but I was not seeing a doctor. I was doing my own thing. That was frustrating enough, what with not getting taken seriously by a lot of people and facing classism online, etc. But, I kind of understand why I get given so much flak: people genuinely think what I am doing simply cannot be done. They have no mental framework for effectively engaging with me.
But to have a specialty hospital someplace so expensive and a requirement to live near it to get treatment and no help for complying with this expectation, then delist them for sleeping in a truck, it just seems monstrous. The hospital has to know that normal, healthy people can't afford housing here. They should also be fully well aware that people with health problems face the double whammy of high medical expenses plus reduced earnings.
America needs to fix both the medical system and affordable housing. It doesn't really deserve to be seen as a civilized, first world nation as things stand currently. I don't care what our GDP is. We are failing to take care of our people and it is monstrous.
And I was approximately 2 hours away whilst being on the transplant list
Now my question is, could the hospital have tried to work something out, say with the Ronald McDonald House? Absolutely.
And further, people in SV are so short-sighted they have no problem paying their workers so little and restricting new housing that their workers can't find a place to live. I've literally had executives at my Palo Alto company bragging about their NIMBY exploits -- which is at the least insensitive considering almost non of their employees could afford to live in Palo Alto and have a decent commute.
It ends up partly being a chicken and egg problem or "the key is in the safe." I had trouble making as much money as I needed in part because of prejudice. If I could make more money, I could take better care of myself.
Someone who has health issues as the root cause of their poverty needs health solutions to be better able to maintain financial stability. This policy is along the lines of "the beatings shall continue until morale improves." It is an all too common stance in American institutions.
There's a few arguments here, does it makes more sense to have organs go to the highest bidder, have a list of restrictions with prioritized recipients, or just accept everyone in on chronological and have them hope for the best?
In a nutshell, I feel that organ transplants are not about the welfare of the patient. They are about doctors and scientists doing things that are cool and look heroic.
If a pathetically poor divorced single mom with special needs kids can get healthier while homeless for nearly six years, surely this is not that hard a problem to solve. People just don't want real solutions. They want expensive as hell drugs (the news-making drug for my condition costs $300k annually for an incurable condition and it only works for about 5% of the patients) and they want heroic surgeries that inflate the egos of the medical profession. They do not actually give a damn about actual health.
I seriously wish I had died instead of getting healthier. No one will listen to me. No one respects me or takes me seriously. I'm just a woman and poor, so I couldn't possibly have a clue what I am talking about.
My life remains in the toilet and I can't figure out how to help people completely for free who desperately need help. What is the point here?
But you go debate who is "deserving" of Frankensteinian surgeries and who is not in your dystopian upper class world with someone other than me. It's not really the conversation I want to have. My time would be better spent trying to make a few bucks in hopes of squeaking by again this month.
(Edited to remove gratuitous swearing. I am prone to using the F word like other people use "very".)
Did you have access to an electric grid? I love camping, and could see doing it for long periods if I had a solution for powering my laptop/cellphone and a solid connection to the internet.
Sleeping in a tent did several things for me.
It got me out of cheap rentals with wall to wall carpeting and hidden mold problems.
It helped me keep my possessions to a minimum. Because I was so sick, everything I touched got infected. The more stuff I had, the harder it was to exercise good germ control.
It allowed me to sleep amidst oxygen producing plants, some of which were aromatic, so they sometimes had mild medicinal effects.
It helped enforce a social quarantine. Being homeless makes it hard to make social connections and people are prejudiced. This helped with germ control, among other things.
It meant I could throw my home out every one to three months and get a new one that wasn't gross from being exposed to me and my germs. Initially, I tried to replace the tent and bedding and my clothes all in one fell swoop every month.
Being unplugged from society made it easier to eat what worked for my health. I was exposed to a lot less social pressure to consume foods at social events to be polite to somebody.
There is probably more, but I think that's probably about all the obvious, easily explained things.
California in particular is worse of in many of these regards. The imbalance of political power in California, skewed to the urban population centers, to the affluent, and to the left has resulted in policies that disadvantage the less educated, lower income, and rural populace. If you go out into the countryside, you can find an anger which can only be explained by people who have been beleaguered on a fundamental level, that of culture and livelihood. On top of that, there are definite non-governmental socio-cultural systems which further work against them. (It is much easier to see these things when you are outside them or have been cast out of them. Let's just say that I've had the misfortune of a broader point of view.)
What I see happening in California is a cultural and political ascendancy of the left, which has become drunk on power which it is abusing. The political right aren't saints, but no faction of human beings are saints and the corruption of power is universal. While we nerds spend our attention on esoteric fripperies like IPAs and keyboards, our society is starting to resemble France when someone said, "after me, the deluge."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n-xhFLkgiE
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/05/california-schools-ear...
I don't know what California needs to do to get its head out of its butt. These are clearly systemic problems. I am incredibly concerned about the trend of tech giants who are, for example, pro Basic Income while they live in the San Francisco Bay Area and can't treat their own employees decently and can't solve problems locally.
I am baffled as to why anyone takes their social theories at all seriously. They are, to some degree, the architects of the dire situation in the SFBA, but they think they can cure the country of its social woes by throwing money at the problem.
This sounds to me like virtue signalling, not like they have any clue what they are talking about. It sounds like trying to deflect the justified anger of the masses with Good Intentions while continuing to be part of the problem.
On the one hand, some of them make the news for how much they want to give to charity or whatever. On the other, some of the same names make the news for how badly they treat their own employees. Sometimes people point this out, but, more often, people debate the so called merits of their proposed solutions without going "Hey, isn't this the same guy who just did [shitty thing du jour] to their own employees?"
I am pretty fed up. I have started fussing at the president via tweet. I am waiting for the FBI to show up at my door. Because silencing (or turning a deaf ear to) the people being crapped on in this country instead if taking their problems seriously seems to be par for the course for the rich, including our real estate mogul president.
I wish someone would make me look like a fool by proving such assertions wrong. Sadly, I think that is increasingly unlikely.
I’m sorry to say no such reprieve is on the way. The situation is as dire as you make it out to be. Silicon Valley, tech culture as a whole, can either be the new master or the savior, it just hasn’t collectively made up its mind yet.
Oh it's made up it's mind. It's just a question of what kind of master it's going to be while it also makes up its mind about what kind of savior it will claim to be while it's at it.
[1] I'm aware of the irony of the forum I'm posting that statement in.
It's a weird sort of militant cultural hegemony that doesn't tolerate even nuanced agreement. The powers that be are actively making life in CA worse, day by day, not realizing the rural and suburban populations support cities by producing the things they need to live.
If you speak privately to most folks who live in LA or SF they'll tell you they HATE the frustrations, but at the same time they're trying to force all Californian's to live like them.
To quote "my dinner with Andre"
“ANDRÉ: . . . And when I was at Findhorn I met this extraordinary English tree expert who had devoted himself to saving trees, and he’d just got back from Washington lobbying to save the Redwoods. And he was eighty-four years old, and he always travels with a backpack because he never knows where he’s going to be tomorrow. And when I met him at Findhorn he said to me, “Where are you from?” And I said, “New York.” And he said, “Ah, New York, yes, that’s a very interesting place. Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave, but never do?” And I said, “Oh, yes.” And he said, “Why do you think they don’t leave?” And I gave him different banal theories. And he said, “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.” He said, “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing that they’ve built—they’ve built their own prison—and so they exist in a state of schizophrenia where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have—having been lobotomized—the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made or even to see it as a prison.” And then he went into his pocket, and he took out a seed for a tree, and he said, “This is a pine tree.” And he put it in my hand. And he said, “Escape before it’s too late.” ― Wallace Shawn, My Dinner With André
Solutions should be possible if rational negotiations could be carried out and affected parties could be compensated adequately. I understand that older residents wish to retain their lifestyle and community character. Could any amount of money and other concessions from new developments compensate them for the potential change that will come quite gradually in any case? Could the new developments be constructed in an area that wouldn't have a direct impact on their daily lives?
More practical concerns like increased traffic jam and effect on property value should be addressable with the tens of billions of economic benefits that could be realized from new, denser developments. Finding a way to equitably distribute these benefits would be a huge headache but since the net results are likely positive, the solution should be possible with the right organization and efforts.
Buying a unit in a highrise in SF never really made sense to me.
What is fairly likely is that the-greater-fool will apply. Some people won't discount the risk properly and you are therefore bidding against people who overvalue the asset.
If that type of earthquake hit SF or Tokyo, I don't really know how much earthquake-proofing will matter?
Stuff like this seems pretty scary for big buildings: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liquefaction_at_Ni...
It would be interesting if someone with expertise was able to offer better insight. Like the above picture illustrates, I don't know if at some point it matters anymore how well the building or foundation is built if the ground is liquified, or moves too much.
It's not uncommon with really expensive houses for a new owner to have it demolished so he can build the house he wants instead; the value is in having permission to have a house on that land, and an earthquake won't take that away (unless it's a really huge earthquake that outright destroys land or makes everyone leave forever).
"Screw you all, we gave you a chance to play ball and you didn't. So now we have to do things the hard way."
Or, more reasonably, just stay the fuck away from silicon valley if you're looking at starting a business or working for a tech company. Things will even out eventually. Or not, but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
I don't get what's so great about the area, anyways. Every time I've been it's just seemed like an insanely expensive shithole...but I guess I'm not the one splashing billions of dollars around.
If you work in a right position for one of the tech giants in the area, the compensation you get will leave you with more savings than working in a much cheaper place with smaller salary.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I wish to have other options as well.
Other companies and schools that train experts are in Canada, closer to the East Coast
Bay Area seems to not be so much about people with exceedingly talent, more about people who will overwork themselves for less pay
> If you are an entrepreneur in a certain field...
more prosaic: sure, it's changed some, but it's still pretty hard to beat culturally for certain sorts of people. if you like both art and technology, especially if you want access to both internationally recognized things and little-known indie things, the only other places in the US that feel like they really compete with SF are LA and NY.
i don't have a job at a tech giant, but i do have what i think is a very interesting software development job, that'd be harder (but not impossible) to find in other places. realistically, because i'm cheap/frugal and interested in saving money, rent control is the only reason i can still afford to live here. but i also really take advantage of the city that i live in: in the past couple months, i've seen p-funk, actress, flying lotus, a local industrial-ish electronic duo, a handful of local noise acts, JLin, hauschka, a screening of "sun ra's space is the place", pharaoh sanders, philip glass & kronos quartet, curren$y, and a bunch i'm forgetting since i'm just listing stuff off-hand. that's an especially good few weeks in an especially good year, but even in slower times, i'm usually going to at least one show i'm really excited about every two weeks to one month. i can also eat delicious food for cheap either from taquerias or by going to the grocery store, or if i have the disposable cash, i can choose from a wide variety of higher-end options across a range of prices. i get to meet people from all over the world. i went to college here, and because of all the above, a number of my good friends from school stuck around, and so i have a very solid social network here. i volunteer at a great community radio station, where i met my girlfriend.
so, for a lot of people, even transplants, wanting to stay isn't so crazy. if my GF and i both happened to get evicted, i'm not sure what we'd do. that seems unlikely, but it does always feel like a bit of a worry.
i don't quite understand the resistance of the natives to the influx of new people, esp since this has literally always been kind of a gold rush town. but hey, i moved around a bunch as a kid, and i like meeting people from different places.
when i told a cabdriver that i'd lived in SF for 11 years, he joked that i wasn't a native, but that i could say i was a local. so as a local, i'd say i'm very strongly YIMBY. fucking build. build housing. build better/faster/more regional transit. e.g., make it fast and easy to get from the SJ suburbs to SF and vice versa, whether it's rush hour or post-last-call. some old stuff will have to come down, some neighborhoods will change character. so it goes. better than steadily pricing out all but the most affluent and pushing them to the far edges (or entirely out of) the region.
I've been really disappointed with these ostensibly libertine cities; weirdly, I'm thinking of heading back to the Midwest for tolerance and creativity.
Dafuq? But them's the breaks...people in the PNW are indifferent to the point of cruelty, on the off chance that they aren't being extremely hostile for the hell of it.
Sorry, but I disagree. Wanting to stay is very crazy. If I got evicted, I'd give a week's notice and take the opportunity to pack a U-haul and leave for greener pastures. What is it with people being content where they are, even when it's a creatively destitute skidrow? Not that I'm one to talk...
People often forget we create laws and give people rights (property, patents, right of way on roads, attendance to public schools, free speech) because these rights serve society as a whole. Patents create the incentive to make public your discoveries. Property allows you to invest on beneficial use of land - agriculture, preservation - with the assurance you'll be able to continue it.
When the rights society gave you no longer benefit society as a whole and, as in this case, start to harm it, then it's time to discuss them.
Some people believe rights are actually inherent, not "given" by anyone. Indeed the US constitution uses the phrase "We hold these rights to be self-evident", and you'll find the justification is not utilitarian (not based on appeal to some ideal outcome).
As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence uses the phrasing, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The Constitution does not use any similar language, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and there's nothing equal about San Francisco land ownership.
Random examples: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-em...
There are examples of good uses of ED... but to say "ED isn't theft" ignores plenty of examples of corruption or incompetence.
If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
And there are many more examples even though it is obvious that startups are generally not scams.
The road you travel to work on, the school you went to, the park you play in if you ask enough questions you'll find out someone was an unwilling seller when it came to building it.
Rights of the individual are all good and well, but they only work when we collectively agree not to be complete and utter assholes to each other for personal gain. That's sort of the whole point of laws and regulations, right? Not to further the interest of whatever special interest group has captured the regulatory agency.
Like, I expect people not to butt into my personal business for no good reason, but I recognize that that expectation is predicated on me not unreasonably intruding on other peoples' affairs.
Is solution even possible? SF simply does not want a change and immigrants. Lets build new Silicon Valley somewhere else...
I am in Berlin right now, and it is way more relaxed here.
I've been part of remote teams a lot and the most productive times we had were when we all flew somewhere to be in the same room for a couple weeks.
Heck, San Francisco has 20% more land area than Paris with only 40% of the population. What is with the terror SF residents have around increasing population density?
There is the space and wealth to make it so, but it is so broken that there isn't even a decent public transporation system from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, resulting in the most horrendous and unpleasant traffic jams basically from 6am to 8pm every day.
The reason for the lack of housing in the bay area is wholly artificial. NIMBYism at the extreme.
Look at other high population areas in earthquake prone regions. Plenty of huge high rises.
It would be great if all we had to do was agree on how to manage side effects. We don’t even have buy-in on the basic cause and effect relationships involved.
I'm pleasantly surprised the city of Palo Alto isn't ticketing or arresting or towing these folks. They passed a law against sleeping in vehicles a few years ago, as I recall. It's deeply troubling, to me, that the solution to homelessness (or near homelessness) is often to make mere existence illegal.
I spent a couple of weeks parking around the University Ave./Downtown area in Palo Alto a few months after I moved into my first RV (a nice/newish motorhome), about eight years ago, to visit with a friend who lived on University, and I didn't have any trouble with police or neighbors, even parked among multimillion dollar homes (it certainly helped that the RV was nice...I got questions from residents but they were of the form "Where've you been?" and "Where are you going next?"), but I'd read there'd been a crackdown on it. I haven't been back in an RV since then.
Last time I was in the area earlier this year, I parked way outside of the valley (about a 1.5 hour drive away, which was literally the closest I could get) and rented a car to drive in (rather than driving my very large F250; the fuel savings paid for the car rental), but I saw that there were little RV villages in a few locations in Mountain View and Palo Alto. If I'd been in a motorhome and didn't have a girlfriend that liked having limitless power and water with me, I would have spent a night or two on those streets just to avoid making that ridiculous drive several times. But, with a trailer, it's just not a great idea to park on streets. Even in places that tolerate motorhomes and vans, they might not tolerate a truck and trailer, and its length often makes it subject to other street parking laws.
There's also a couple on I-5, but they might be a 1.5 hour drive from Mountain View.
So, no, I'd bet there is no near-permanent residency happening at rest stops in Northern CA. At least, I've never seen evidence of it. And, I sometimes talk to folks living in weird places when I find them, as I find the subculture fascinating (if a little depressing). I've met lots of Walmart parking lot residents. But, no Walmarts in Northern CA allow overnights, either.
That said, if you are determined to live here when you don't make a lot of money, living living in an RV makes a lot more sense than paying ridiculous rent. Their rent is almost nil, and they get to save money based on a higher wage than they would get in other areas of the country.
Heads they win, tails you lose?
(long term I would think that access to education will be the solution to this, and yet I also know that if everyone in the rust belt were reeducated with some great skill set, we still wouldn't have enough jobs for them at the pay they would expect)
I find it sort of horrific that folks are having to make decisions like, "Do I get good health care and live in a van or do I live in an apartment I can afford?"
I still can't get over the guy who was on a transplant list but was removed from the list because he lived in a box truck. There's something sick about a society that lets that happen, but I don't know what the cure is.
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truc...
Those living and working in SV are among the richest people to ever live. But studies of happinesss suggest we're not really happier for being richer--it appears people get caught up in "buying things we don't need, to impress people we don't like."
I think I understand where you're coming from, but Stanford does not have these things?
Google offers those things if you're an employee.
I thought those RVs were all tailgaters who were just trying to get a good spot.
I feel terrible now.
Then after they all move out, maybe the tech industry will figure out a way to make it livable for those people when they realise they need them too.
I don't know the intricacies of the US health care system, but I think it might be a major setback for their healthcare if they relocated.
And they might not be any more well off if they relocated. They might have slightly higher wages living in SV. Moving elsewhere might mean they couldn't even afford living in a vehicle.
In China, there have been attempts by startup companies offering employees sleeping pods near the office, while providing water and shower so that the employee can simply stay around the office during the course of a year long employment with occasional "offsite" airbnb living. But unfortunately such attempt was shut down: https://www.techinasia.com/china-napping-pods-startup-forced...
Short video documentary on the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.html
They ride the bus back and forth throughout the night getting off at each end usually several times.
There's actually a substantial debate about car camping in Palo Alto. A parking/camping ban was floated, then repealed; these spaces on El Camino seem like a compromise, and are in a bit of a jurisdictional gray-area between Stanford, Palo Alto, and the California Highway Patrol.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/11/18/palo-alto-str...
Seriously, why cant there be an easy app with shameless reputation to allow anonymous tiny donations? Maybe they can pick up $$ at a Walmart