California's hidden homeless: workers living in cars due to property prices | Hacker News Reader

California's hidden homeless: workers living in cars due to property prices

dailymail.co.uk

55 pointsbcaulfield64 comments

The original article was written for the LA Times:

http://beta.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-safe-pa...

Thanks. Corresponding HN thread was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15995240.

I recently moved out to Silicon Valley and it’s shocking to me how depressed the area looks. All the housing is cheap, ugly 70s/80s era architecture. Much of that is poorly maintained. Most retail storefronts are about the same. Add in all the poverty and homeless and I’m betting it would be impossible for any visitor to tell there was an economic boom unrivaled in all of civilization happening. Consider Venice in the 14-16th centuries, Amsterdam in the 17th century, London in the 18-19th centuries, New York in the early 20th century. SV is not building anything people are going to want to come see 400 years from now. It’s amazing how people there are happy to let people suffer to protect nothing special at all.

Very well said. This city drains me of what little energy I have left.

I had a friend who decided to live in his Ford Explorer in San Diego rather than pay rent....

Then he flipped his Explorer on the freeway going like 70 mph. He survived unscratched but his SUV was totaled.

Fortunately for him, he was able to move in with his mom and stepdad (who he hated) but if he was anybody else and he didn't have family in the area he would have been completely homeless...

It sucks that happened, but it's hard to conjure the same sympathy.

He made choices - "live in car, rather than pay rent" - what happened to all the money he saved by doing so? Wasn't able to buy a new car? Or spent it?

Presumably he could have afforded a new (to him) car albeit he'd pay a lot to do so quickly. Car prices in CA are perfectly reasonable.

Serious question not addressed in the article: Why don't they move out of California?

All the people mentioned have one thing in common: they got jobs. Not the best-paying jobs, yes, but proper jobs. Hard enough to move jobs in a state - before doing this, you should have a job secured in your destination, and given they're living on the streets they most likely lack the money for days of traveling and job applications, not to mention that moving itself costs considerable time and money - but for moving out of state, stuff gets even more complex and expensive. For example teachers might need a retraining due to different curricula, and nurses, policemen and construction workers due to different regulatory schemes...

That might be a solution for them, but it is not a solution for us and our society. If the cost-of-living-adjusted wages aren't high enough to give the providers of such essential services housing, then that's a problem we need to fix regardless.

Cost of living wage is a bit of a misnomer

Why a misnomer?

A deeper question would be: Are we part of our environment and ought we sometimes fight to keep our location not just our social position if that is a strong feeling for us?

It is possible some people belong where they are and relocation is a compromise for the weak at heart.

( I say this while also living in the epicenter of the Hepatitis A outbreaks, Downtown San Diego, California; I am surrounded by listless vagrants [ different than homeless ] )

Other ways of putting this:

* How is home more than a commodity (housing) for a person?

* What socialized costs occur when individuals and therefore their social/economic networks are disrupted by changes to cost of living?

Many do, obviously. But from a societal perspective, why should they have to? California is doing well economically, particularly the bay area. In a time where the country seems short for good jobs, shouldn't we be pushing as hard as possible to let people move into and stay in areas that are successful?

Not to mention that presumably if all the teachers, chefs, and nurses are driven out of California their absence will be a problem for the remaining Californians.

Will it be a problem? Or will it cause a reevaluation of pay scales for those professions? Might it cause pay to actually rise to an appropriate level for those workers? I don't know, but it sounds like an intriguing idea.

I recently read an article linked on Hacker News about a woman who commutes 3 hours each way to work a government job in Los Angeles. She could get the same job in her home town, but it pays half as much, so she does the commute to send her kids to college. It sounds like the job is worth more than she's making at it, but the same job near her home doesn't pay enough to make it worth her while. If it did, likely LA would have to raise the wage for that position.

I grew up in Santa Cruz county across the mountain from Silicon Valley. I used to wake up on the weekend and go on a walk on the cliffs, or mountain bike in the hills. I’m living in Silicon Valley now and it’s hard knowing I’ll have to spend so much time in the office to afford a home in this area that I’ll struggle to actually spend time enjoying the natural beauty here.

But I am in love with this area and I want to stay.

Lots of factors

- Have always lived in california and

- have all their friends there

- family lives there

- are afraid of moving and starting completely new

- are introverts and would look at being lonely for several years before they would have some friends

- would mean they would have a long distance relationship with their gf/bf if she can't move/doesn't want

It's a bit easier if you're in your 20s, but harder later

Plus hard to get some of these jobs elsewhere where seniority rules dominate (e.g. teaching, firefighting...)

Most people have strong attachment to places. Also job portability isn't always very easy, depending on what field you are in. I could see lower wager workers finding it hard to get a job in areas where cost of living is cheap but can't afford living where there is work but it pays shit. Must be a real dilemma with probably very few winning scenarios.

Teaching credentials don’t always transfer across state lines, and oftentimes there’s a requirement to take a course or obtain another certification to teach in a different state, both of which require them to pay more money.

'Teachers, chefs, nurses and other middle class workers living in cars...'

Shame they couldn't find any for the body of the article?

Because it's the daily mail...[0]

[0] https://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI

Sorry if this sounds rude, it's not meant to be, but as a foreigner, I really cannot fathom why what are basically homeless people would be called "middle class". How can you be "middle class" and poor at the same time ? What is the definition of "middle class" ?

Many people perceive class based on salary/occupation and dollar values rather than what those dollars actually buy in context. The Bay Area is considered rich, even if the median person’s standard of living is below national standards, because salaries are so high.

They aren't poor at all, they refuse to leave one of the most expensive places in the world because "I was here first" or "I love this place" etc.

The people in this scenario aren't poor. They simply can't find living arrangements that meet their requirements.

If we didn't dedicate so much land and building space to cars and parking, people wouldn't have to live in cars and parking lots.

And allow for more density in general.

Especially density that's cheap and high quality == manufactured...like cars.

This can't be the America we want for our children and fellow citizens, but until we can get normal people into elected office the tailspin of our country will continue.

If you feel helpless about situations like this two pieces of advice of how YOU can help:

1) Get educated on your local politicians and newcomers during elections

2) Vote

You'll make a huge difference.

I think that for things to truly change we need to do more than just vote. Most local elections in SV are a joke. We need some of the smart people that we all know to start running for public offices.

This isn't Trumps fault, but money concentrating in the Valley.

Spinning things with little substance towards Trump is also harmful, it makes the conservatives less and less willing to listen to reason.

How did the labor and housing markets get so dramatically out of sync?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_region...

Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?

>The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decline in the rate of income convergence across states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific returns to living in those places, and (3) a redirection of unskilled migration away from productive places. We develop a model in which rising housing prices in wealthy areas deter unskilled migration and slow income convergence. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this channel in the data. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has mostly stopped in places with more regulation.

Extremely simplified: residents use democracy (in the form of zoning regulations) to vote out people they don't like. This effectively forbids the construction of affordable housing.

The demand is there, but the supply is not allowed to meet it.

Local communities decide what sort of housing they will contain, how much of it to permit, and in some cases the price it will go for, along with the income ranges for eligible buyers/renters. Their interests are maintenance of status-quo or lower levels of crowding and traffic, deterrence of gentrification in renter communities, and boosting home values in owner communities.

Tech companies decide what products to build, who to sell them to, how much to sell them for, and how many people to hire.

If the Palo Alto city council planned Facebook.com the way it plans housing adjacent to the Facebook campus, they might grow at more similar paces.

It's complicated. Prop 13 is a major cause, by removing any downside to increased property values for existing homeowners. God, what a terrible law.

Also, those who would benefit most from saner housing prices are those who would potentially move in, but potential residents don't get to vote.

Teachers and chefs I could see, but nurses?

My wife earns a six-figure salary as a nurse here in San Diego, CA and she works at one of the the lowest paying hospitals in the area.

The person they're talking about is a CNA. According to the US BLS they average 24k/year. Nowhere near six figures.

Yeah, I just saw that. The headline is misleading. Nursing assistants are not the same thing as nurses.

This should come as no surprise. With a software engineer salary it's barely enough to support 2 people. Can't imagine what it must be for the lower income brackets... When rent is 33%+ of a six figure salary for a 1 bedroom built in the fifties and looking like it, you can start wondering how the heck did we get there.

Is there no way, to just take a normal residential building, tear everything down inside except for the exterior walls and fill it with japanese sleep coffins?

Even if zoning laws would forbid this- life should find a way as they say.

Let's estimate it out.

http://www.loopnet.com/california/san-francisco_apartment-bu...

2950 21st Street is 4900 square feet and costs $3M. Right now it's 4 x 1200 square foot apartments, which go for about $45/square foot. Yowzers, that's $4500/month.

Let's say you take each of the two floors and remodel them: two full bathrooms designed for shared tenancy, each coffin takes up 8 feet by 5 feet by 4 feet and you stack them two high, with 8 sqft of hallway and such added in. That's 48 sqft per coffin stack, so with perfect layout you get 100 coffin stacks. But you need room for bathrooms for 80+ people, and that means 8 stalls, 8 sinks, and 8 shower cubicles, taking up about 20% of the space. OK, your max occupancy is 80 where it used to be 16.

The good news: you can charge as little as $250/month. If you spend enough on insulation you won't need to spend much on heat in the winter, but ventilation is going to be a problem.

Nobody gets a parking space.

Lice will be a problem.

Cockroaches will be a problem.

However, the issue that will get you the status of first slumlord to be sentenced to life in prison is fire safety.

If you design it in such a way, that people can evacuate similar to airplanes? Basically every floor becomes a slide to safety outside?

Also it doesent have to become slumy if its well organized. See the various capsule hotels in japan. If you up it to 300 $ you could have comon "living rooms".

More interesting is, how would hide this from the neighbours?

My suggestion: Have somebody drive a big truck into a garage regularly and basically be the shuttle service. Provide a set of two rooms near the front door - and a concierge actor using racism to provide a cover. Finally, a faked daily lightshow, behind the windows to provide the ilusion of ongoing normal life.

This stealth hotel really would be a "hacking" -challenge: Next problems would be water and sewer system.

Power supply and noiseless ventilation.

My suggestion- create many false positives, to desensitize residents eveywhere to loud air conditioning.

So for the hacked hostel to exist, one would need neighbours nearby who for money would allow a loudly humming installation (wifi-antenna) on there roof to exist.

I don't think fire safety is much of an issue anymore if you put in modern sprinkler systems.

That's a great idea, but please not in my neighborhood.

Why not?

NIMBY.

People will still complain about anything more expensive than living in a car or tent.

yeah, clearly these people are just whiners and shouldnt have any issue paying $4000 a month in rent for a single room appartment.

Is there a legal avenue for the governor to declare a state of emergency and use eminent domain to mandate the building of homes, overruling local authorities?

I am sure they will get right on that.

We just need the right governor in power, if we lived in a summer blockbuster.

30 some people living out in the frigid cold in tents right now in Akron, Oh., they would love to be in southern Cal right now.

I've come to the sad realization that Holywood/Silicon Valley liberal ideology is a significant enabler of inequality and wealth stratification.

They'd rather have people living out of cars and tents than being paid reasonable wages or having affordable housing.

Can't wait until their latest amendment passes[0] in California.

[0]https://ballotpedia.org/California_No_Taxes_After_Age_55_Ini...

What do you mean by "liberal"?

For e.g. neither Hollywood/Silicon Valley are "economically leftist"---they would be considered "liberal" in Europe, where "liberal" refers to "economically liberal", i.e. policies similar to "laissez faire" (which seems about right for Hollywood/SV).

On the other hand, they are also supportive of "progressive norms", such as "LGBTQ rights" or "multiculturalism", which are often bunched up together with being "liberal" in the US. However, being "socially liberal" is very different from being "economically liberal", and I am not sure there is any tight correlation between the two, let alone causative influence. In Europe, for example, there is a tight anti-correlation between the two.

So, what do you mean by "liberal ideology is a significant enabler of inequality"? Do you mean that "less liberal economic policies", or in other words "socialist economic policies" might benefit the region? Or do you mean that "socially liberal ideals" (which are essentially about caring for others, because you lack the belief that people are born where they are meant to be) have allowed for inequality?

Another term for "economically liberal" is neoliberal. Of course, "economic liberals" run crying to "nanny state" when going gets tough, such as when housing bubble got burst. I am sure we wouldn't have these cost of housing problems now if bailouts never happened. Amazing how "laissez faire" works only in one direction for "economically liberal".

I don't think this a left/right or liberal/conservative issue. People with high incomes of every political leaning think they deserve their high incomes and like to pay the rest as little as possible. For example there is no reason why rich tech companies can't pay their cleaning staff decent money other than not caring.

Over the last few years I have had several people with multi million dollar homes ask me to help with tech issues and they were the stingiest people I have ever met. Thank God I can tell them to f... off but a lot other people don't have the luxury of choice.

starting to believe that homeless camps are our a logical outcome of the legal/governance system. If cities build housing for the homeless they become responsible (assume civil liability) for their health, well-being, property, safety and civil rights to a much greater degree. In addition to the actual service costs they have to deal with nitpicky lawsuits. Suddenly every 1000 homeless you house is 100m/year budget item. No voters/donors want the city budget slashed or to build a lot of poverty-level housing. So whats the rational thing for local politicians to do ... given nobody dies from exposure in California, easier and cheaper to let the homeless fester on some side streets or little-visited skid row neighborhoods, provide some token services without taking responsibility. sad truth.

>No taxes above the age of 55.

Lol, is this a joke?

Regrettably not. Note also that ti's a constitutional amendment, meaning it won't be able to be overturned by the legislature in the (admittedly unlikely) event that it passes. This is a simple money grab by established interests, although it will be sold as protection for the most vulnerable - with the unspoken provise that those who don't own property or have significant taxable income don't matter. A previous initiative which limited growth in property taxes, prop. 13, did a lot to shape the development of housing in the state and arguably has contributed to the housing crisis, since it creates significant disincentives to sell if a property has gained significantly in value. I'm not a big fan of property taxes to start with, but prop 13 means that people living in otherwise identical properties on the same block can be paying wildly different rates of tax depending on when they purchased their home, which is rather inequitable. I'd be somewhat worse off if it were abolished but I don't think it's been good for California.

It's in the gathering-signatures stage.

There's a quiet a lot of, ehm, "interesting" ballot initiatives here.

Legalized psilocybin anyone?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/initiative-a...

As they saying goes, democracy is perfect but it has one fatal flaw... the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com