NIMBY
May 28, 2019 7:24 AM Subscribe
Separated by Design: How Some of America’s Richest Towns Fight Affordable Housing In southwest Connecticut, the gap between rich and poor is wider than anywhere else in the country. Invisible walls created by local zoning boards and the state government block affordable housing and, by extension, the people who need it.
'Dear NIMBYs' — An Open Letter From A Homeless Woman In LA
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:36 AM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:36 AM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.
posted by supercres at 8:06 AM on May 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by supercres at 8:06 AM on May 28, 2019 [13 favorites]
(To be clear: Manjoo is attacking said wealthy liberals from the left. In many cities including mine the need to distinguish between liberals and progressives is incredibly stark.)
posted by supercres at 8:08 AM on May 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by supercres at 8:08 AM on May 28, 2019 [8 favorites]
Stephens, the zoning commissioner, said there were legitimate reasons for the application to take so long, none of which had to do with the type of residents it would attract.
“We have one of the most welcoming communities here,” Stephens said. “We go above and beyond. I would be aghast if anyone suggested differently.”
lol lol lol
posted by crazy with stars at 8:14 AM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
“We have one of the most welcoming communities here,” Stephens said. “We go above and beyond. I would be aghast if anyone suggested differently.”
lol lol lol
posted by crazy with stars at 8:14 AM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
I was reminded of this in a recent housing-related thread.
restrictive zoning is how the wealthy keep anything that might give them a moment of clarity about inequality safely out of view
posted by murphy slaw at 8:19 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
restrictive zoning is how the wealthy keep anything that might give them a moment of clarity about inequality safely out of view
posted by murphy slaw at 8:19 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Of course they're welcoming. They don't care what color your skin is, or who you like to fuck, as long as you make $200k per household, and act appropriately.
Welcome to Connecticut. "If you don't like it, just keep driving."
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:22 AM on May 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
Welcome to Connecticut. "If you don't like it, just keep driving."
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:22 AM on May 28, 2019 [23 favorites]
NIMBYs are the worst.
I live in an expensive small city, in a mostly middle-class neighborhood - it's a mixture of grad students splitting the cost of rent in divided houses and families. The city itself has a reputation for being super lefty; it's the kind of place a socialist candidate might not win, but gets attention.
We have a housing crisis here: too few units overall, and too few of those are affordable. Most are priced for young professionals or students who are splitting the cost with multiple roommates. The price of rent on my old single-bedroom apartment went up $300 a month over just a few years.
The hypocrisy is really obvious when you talk to some people. They're all for progressive policies until those policies might impact their neighborhood. Then they are suddenly NIMBYs and it becomes really clear how a city that is supposedly so "progressive" can be one of the most economically segregated cities in the US.
I live in a middle class neighborhood that happens to have some of the only supportive and low-income housing near the center of town. The supportive housing complex is right behind my house. And yeah, sometimes things happen that bother me, but the most disruptive thing is probably the guy who keeps trying to fix his noisy and smelly car. That's like ... not that bad?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:23 AM on May 28, 2019 [25 favorites]
I live in an expensive small city, in a mostly middle-class neighborhood - it's a mixture of grad students splitting the cost of rent in divided houses and families. The city itself has a reputation for being super lefty; it's the kind of place a socialist candidate might not win, but gets attention.
We have a housing crisis here: too few units overall, and too few of those are affordable. Most are priced for young professionals or students who are splitting the cost with multiple roommates. The price of rent on my old single-bedroom apartment went up $300 a month over just a few years.
The hypocrisy is really obvious when you talk to some people. They're all for progressive policies until those policies might impact their neighborhood. Then they are suddenly NIMBYs and it becomes really clear how a city that is supposedly so "progressive" can be one of the most economically segregated cities in the US.
I live in a middle class neighborhood that happens to have some of the only supportive and low-income housing near the center of town. The supportive housing complex is right behind my house. And yeah, sometimes things happen that bother me, but the most disruptive thing is probably the guy who keeps trying to fix his noisy and smelly car. That's like ... not that bad?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:23 AM on May 28, 2019 [25 favorites]
Very much reminds me of the attempts to expand the Orange Line here in the Boston area to my town and a few towns beyond. We have been seeing a ton of new condo development building up around the train station here (Commuter Rail), including on the site of an old tannery, lumberyard and machine shop whose ground pollution is so bad I wouldn't want to so much as stand there for extended periods of time, but that's another story. The Orange Line, being a subway line, kept getting voted down, even though the main selling point of the Commuter Rail is access to Boston without having to drive into the city (which is a nightmare). One needn't wonder why that distinction is important to a lot of residents.
posted by xingcat at 8:23 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by xingcat at 8:23 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
xingcat: There have been subway expansion plans on the books in Philadelphia for nearly a century now. It's was first stymied by the Depression, then World War II, and since then, by NIMBYs in Northeast Philadelphia who don't want those people in the neighborhood. And it infuriates me to no end.
posted by SansPoint at 8:27 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 8:27 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
kutsuwamushi But they're... different
posted by Captain Fetid at 8:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Captain Fetid at 8:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
In my city most of the NIMBY Liberals vote for the nominally socialist party, but I still think we should call them what they are: conservatives.
posted by klanawa at 8:55 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by klanawa at 8:55 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
For minority residents striving for safe and affordable housing, the state has “denied the opportunity that we allowed white middle-class aspirants to access,” Malloy said.
The article just describes the latest in a long history of American housing policy - spoken loudly or softly - designed to offer opportunities to white people that aren't offered to people of color.
To that point, I'm quite surprised that the article doesn't mention redlining. You can't talk about segregation in USA cities without mentioning redlining, which created poverty and segregation as we know it - in a particularly durable form that has lasted nearly 100 years and creates ongoing health effects directly tied to 1930s housing/finance policies.
Overt redlining has shifted to covert redlining, but the effect is the same. Give white people the ability to access healthy housing and home equity; deny it to people of color; blame people of color when the resultant inequalities rear their heads.
posted by entropone at 8:56 AM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
The article just describes the latest in a long history of American housing policy - spoken loudly or softly - designed to offer opportunities to white people that aren't offered to people of color.
To that point, I'm quite surprised that the article doesn't mention redlining. You can't talk about segregation in USA cities without mentioning redlining, which created poverty and segregation as we know it - in a particularly durable form that has lasted nearly 100 years and creates ongoing health effects directly tied to 1930s housing/finance policies.
Overt redlining has shifted to covert redlining, but the effect is the same. Give white people the ability to access healthy housing and home equity; deny it to people of color; blame people of color when the resultant inequalities rear their heads.
posted by entropone at 8:56 AM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
In many cities including mine the need to distinguish between liberals and progressives is incredibly stark.
I don't know -- I live in an area where almost everyone would describe themselves as progressive (the East Bay, CA); few would call themselves liberal because it's sort of a skunked term, and I just don't see a bright line between the two populations, except maybe in theory. It seems to me the problem is less sorting people into proper categories and more confronting harmful attitudes within the left.
posted by aws17576 at 8:59 AM on May 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
I don't know -- I live in an area where almost everyone would describe themselves as progressive (the East Bay, CA); few would call themselves liberal because it's sort of a skunked term, and I just don't see a bright line between the two populations, except maybe in theory. It seems to me the problem is less sorting people into proper categories and more confronting harmful attitudes within the left.
posted by aws17576 at 8:59 AM on May 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
Same as it ever was I guess
“I'll do anything to save our schools
If my taxes ain't too much more
And I love Blacks and Gays and Latinos
As long as they don't move next door“
Yes we need to unhook property value from education funding which is one of the more overt versions of our modern redlining and yes we need to untangle the covert redlining in the system (we never actually desegregated after Brown, not in a meaningful way) but the real issue here is that your home should not be your wallet. For the majority of Americans who “own” their home they have to keep anything that might possible in the future effect their property value that they might in the future someday leverage for some gain, assuming they pay off their mortgage. Cause what does capitalism do in a crisis? First it moves things physically (unpleasant factories or jobs to poor areas or faraway countries) and then it moves things temporally, into future possible gains (finacialization of all sectors of the economy for one.).
A house is not a commodity. A house is not an investment. A house is something people need to live.
Thankfully I’m positive on US housing reform cause our current system is so bad we have a wealth of other models to look too that work much better.
posted by The Whelk at 9:09 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
“I'll do anything to save our schools
If my taxes ain't too much more
And I love Blacks and Gays and Latinos
As long as they don't move next door“
Yes we need to unhook property value from education funding which is one of the more overt versions of our modern redlining and yes we need to untangle the covert redlining in the system (we never actually desegregated after Brown, not in a meaningful way) but the real issue here is that your home should not be your wallet. For the majority of Americans who “own” their home they have to keep anything that might possible in the future effect their property value that they might in the future someday leverage for some gain, assuming they pay off their mortgage. Cause what does capitalism do in a crisis? First it moves things physically (unpleasant factories or jobs to poor areas or faraway countries) and then it moves things temporally, into future possible gains (finacialization of all sectors of the economy for one.).
A house is not a commodity. A house is not an investment. A house is something people need to live.
Thankfully I’m positive on US housing reform cause our current system is so bad we have a wealth of other models to look too that work much better.
posted by The Whelk at 9:09 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Thankfully I’m positive on US housing reform cause our current system is so bad we have a wealth of other models to look too that work much better.
the hard right in the UK is clamoring to adopt our disastrous health care infrastructure, who’s to say that the arc of history bends toward sane housing policy rather than the opposite?
posted by murphy slaw at 9:14 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
the hard right in the UK is clamoring to adopt our disastrous health care infrastructure, who’s to say that the arc of history bends toward sane housing policy rather than the opposite?
posted by murphy slaw at 9:14 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
Progressives in the Bay Area massively oppose new development. It's understandable given the history but it's the biggest way I personally differ from progressives who I otherwise align with. Here's a good article on the Oakland situation.
posted by latkes at 9:17 AM on May 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:17 AM on May 28, 2019 [11 favorites]
I think we do need to start pushing some real social housing bills in terms of a funding body that can actually fund construction of revenue neutral, mixed income public housing, but for such an agency to be able to actually do anything, we must ditch zoning which is a racist scourge on the US, and lefties, whatever the label, have to drop our fetish, which we share with the right, for suburban, single family neighborhoods. It's tall or sprawl and sprawl is expensive, exclusive and terrible for the environment.
posted by latkes at 9:30 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:30 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
I’ve never lived in a single family home in my life and neither have most of my friends so I don’t think we have the fetish here.
posted by The Whelk at 9:37 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 9:37 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
Massachusetts has an explicit ban on snob zoning. If a town doesn't have a designated area that allows for the building of affordable housing, it risks losing control of its zoning code and handing it to Beacon Hill.
It doesn't mean affordable housing actually gets built.
It doesn't mean affordable housing isn't instantly snapped up by people with higher incomes.
But it means the instruments of government are not available for the purpose of pushing the poor out.
posted by ocschwar at 9:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
It doesn't mean affordable housing actually gets built.
It doesn't mean affordable housing isn't instantly snapped up by people with higher incomes.
But it means the instruments of government are not available for the purpose of pushing the poor out.
posted by ocschwar at 9:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
But it means the instruments of government are not available for the purpose of pushing the poor out.
Erm. Not that the law doesn't have noble intentions, but *gestures vaguely at the madness near the southern end of the Orange Line*
And Boston proper is one of the few places in the state with fairly progressive housing policies! Things go off the rails even more once you get to Needham or Wellesley or Arlington.
posted by Mayor West at 9:43 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Erm. Not that the law doesn't have noble intentions, but *gestures vaguely at the madness near the southern end of the Orange Line*
And Boston proper is one of the few places in the state with fairly progressive housing policies! Things go off the rails even more once you get to Needham or Wellesley or Arlington.
posted by Mayor West at 9:43 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
It’s awesome that some on the left are already on board with density but at least in California increasing density is explicitly associated with luxury while SF progs ignore the sprawl in the outer suburbs that is explicitly caused by resistance to density in the core.
posted by latkes at 9:50 AM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by latkes at 9:50 AM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
It's tall or sprawl
Low rise high density! Barcelona superblocks! Viennese urbanism!
Human buildings at human scales.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:06 AM on May 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
Low rise high density! Barcelona superblocks! Viennese urbanism!
Human buildings at human scales.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:06 AM on May 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
“We have one of the most welcoming communities here,” Stephens said. “We go above and beyond. I would be aghast if anyone suggested differently.”
My brother lives in Westport (in a single-family home sitting on two acres of land) and I spend a lot of time there. I can confirm that this is HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS, by which I mean a venomous lie from start to finish.
posted by holborne at 10:07 AM on May 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
My brother lives in Westport (in a single-family home sitting on two acres of land) and I spend a lot of time there. I can confirm that this is HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS, by which I mean a venomous lie from start to finish.
posted by holborne at 10:07 AM on May 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
A New Economy Project conference going on right now is addressing how a public bank in NYC could run interference on Wall Street investment real estate redlining - more good things Public Bans could do - isn’t LA zoned super weirdly in the first place? I seem to recall a big vote in the mid 90s to restrict everything but the most suburban style development everywhere.
posted by The Whelk at 10:08 AM on May 28, 2019
posted by The Whelk at 10:08 AM on May 28, 2019
Westport! Literally the model for Stepford in the Stepford Wives!
But yes there’s a world of difference between GLASS SUPER TALL and a three story apartment ring around a central garden/courtyard. Like if there was a city as dense as say, Paris, which few would say is claustrophobic nightmare of looming tower blocks, you could fit the world’s population into something slightly bigger than New Jersey.
You could fit some very pleasant medium dense housing in most American parking lots. America is just sitting around trying to reinvent a small market town or garden city.
posted by The Whelk at 10:09 AM on May 28, 2019 [21 favorites]
But yes there’s a world of difference between GLASS SUPER TALL and a three story apartment ring around a central garden/courtyard. Like if there was a city as dense as say, Paris, which few would say is claustrophobic nightmare of looming tower blocks, you could fit the world’s population into something slightly bigger than New Jersey.
You could fit some very pleasant medium dense housing in most American parking lots. America is just sitting around trying to reinvent a small market town or garden city.
posted by The Whelk at 10:09 AM on May 28, 2019 [21 favorites]
Erm. Not that the law doesn't have noble intentions, but *gestures vaguely at the madness near the southern end of the Orange Line*
Where the crazy housing market is pushing the poor out? Not going to deny it, BUT:
1. we have a law that prevents towns from standing in teh way of building more units.
2. we are building more units.
3. we are employing blue collar workers to build those units.
And it's beautiful to watch politicians in Needham et cetera contort themselves to try to advocate for snob zoning without actually advocating snob zoning.
posted by ocschwar at 10:22 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Where the crazy housing market is pushing the poor out? Not going to deny it, BUT:
1. we have a law that prevents towns from standing in teh way of building more units.
2. we are building more units.
3. we are employing blue collar workers to build those units.
And it's beautiful to watch politicians in Needham et cetera contort themselves to try to advocate for snob zoning without actually advocating snob zoning.
posted by ocschwar at 10:22 AM on May 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
isn’t LA zoned super weirdly in the first place? I seem to recall a big vote in the mid 90s to restrict everything but the most suburban style development everywhere
Yeah, LA is bonkers. The biggest changes happened before the mid 90s though. The best study I'm aware of is Greg Morrow's The Homeowner Revolution: Democracy, Land Use and the Los Angeles Slow-Growth Movement, 1965-1992.
The graph in the intro is absolutely insane - between 1960 and 1990, LA went from being zoned to accommodate 10M people to 4M.
posted by ripley_ at 10:39 AM on May 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
Yeah, LA is bonkers. The biggest changes happened before the mid 90s though. The best study I'm aware of is Greg Morrow's The Homeowner Revolution: Democracy, Land Use and the Los Angeles Slow-Growth Movement, 1965-1992.
The graph in the intro is absolutely insane - between 1960 and 1990, LA went from being zoned to accommodate 10M people to 4M.
posted by ripley_ at 10:39 AM on May 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
I would be amazingly pumped if SF would approve Paris level density which is like 5 or 6 stories everywhere.
posted by latkes at 11:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by latkes at 11:38 AM on May 28, 2019 [9 favorites]
Ha just googled and Paris is 6-10 stories which is basically unthinkable inSF or the vast majority of California.
posted by latkes at 11:58 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by latkes at 11:58 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
the vast majority of California
It's reached the point where apparently San Jose is considering a system whereby the city will finance half the cost of your building a backyard rental unit, or converting your garage to a rental dwelling, in exchange for the city receiving half of the resulting rent until you pay back their loan. They don't even care who rents from you, could be your own mom, as long as rent money changes hands and half goes to the city.
At minimum, the state of California should intercede and say something like "any residential plot which fronts on a five lane road (two in each direction, plus center lane) is now zoned for a five story apartment block with a minimum of five units, by right, regardless of local zoning rules". Or something. Just intercede wholesale -- making the zoning continent on the size of the facing street may help minimize the NIMBY onslaught, because (IME) most of the NIMBYEST NIMBYS don't live on those streets, they're already mostly rented.
It's gonna need to be a state-wide intervention.
posted by aramaic at 12:40 PM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
It's reached the point where apparently San Jose is considering a system whereby the city will finance half the cost of your building a backyard rental unit, or converting your garage to a rental dwelling, in exchange for the city receiving half of the resulting rent until you pay back their loan. They don't even care who rents from you, could be your own mom, as long as rent money changes hands and half goes to the city.
At minimum, the state of California should intercede and say something like "any residential plot which fronts on a five lane road (two in each direction, plus center lane) is now zoned for a five story apartment block with a minimum of five units, by right, regardless of local zoning rules". Or something. Just intercede wholesale -- making the zoning continent on the size of the facing street may help minimize the NIMBY onslaught, because (IME) most of the NIMBYEST NIMBYS don't live on those streets, they're already mostly rented.
It's gonna need to be a state-wide intervention.
posted by aramaic at 12:40 PM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
SB50 was the main contender for a state-wide intervention, and is currently frozen in carbonite in Sacramento.
posted by feckless at 1:07 PM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by feckless at 1:07 PM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
latkes: Progressives in the Bay Area massively oppose new development. It's understandable given the history but it's the biggest way I personally differ from progressives who I otherwise align with.
Hi there fellow Bay Arean who hates NIMBYs! And I am surrounded by them, sigh. "But our open space!" "But our quality of life!" "But the soul of our town!"
I hit a trifecta the other day conversing with a person on another blog who was anti-suburbia, anti-gentrification, AND anti-development. When asked "just where are people supposed to live, then?" their answer was basically "somewhere else. Fuck off, we're full, don't move here. Bloom where you're planted!" I for reals-think that there are many liberal NIMBY types who would love a hukou policy!
Development isn't just ugly cement towers; it can be mere five or ten story buildings that are attractive and functional and blend in well with the environment (and can have solar panels and other good things). And that's what we need to build lots of in places like California or else we're going to have a combination of endless gentrification (because only the rich will be able to afford cities) and endless sprawl ("drive till you qualify!").
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:22 PM on May 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
Hi there fellow Bay Arean who hates NIMBYs! And I am surrounded by them, sigh. "But our open space!" "But our quality of life!" "But the soul of our town!"
I hit a trifecta the other day conversing with a person on another blog who was anti-suburbia, anti-gentrification, AND anti-development. When asked "just where are people supposed to live, then?" their answer was basically "somewhere else. Fuck off, we're full, don't move here. Bloom where you're planted!" I for reals-think that there are many liberal NIMBY types who would love a hukou policy!
Development isn't just ugly cement towers; it can be mere five or ten story buildings that are attractive and functional and blend in well with the environment (and can have solar panels and other good things). And that's what we need to build lots of in places like California or else we're going to have a combination of endless gentrification (because only the rich will be able to afford cities) and endless sprawl ("drive till you qualify!").
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 1:22 PM on May 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
I for reals-think that there are many liberal NIMBY types who would love a hukou policy!
This is essentially the position of 48 Hills, the premier example of left-NIMBYism in the Bay Area. (Note that the author of that piece owns a million dollar Berkeley home.)
posted by en forme de poire at 1:30 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
This is essentially the position of 48 Hills, the premier example of left-NIMBYism in the Bay Area. (Note that the author of that piece owns a million dollar Berkeley home.)
posted by en forme de poire at 1:30 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
This post and sub-topic about LA in particular is really bringing up a lot of pretty unpleasant memories, specifically about suburban life and being homeless.
I was first homeless at 17 and was fleeing an extremely abusive step parent. This would have been Orange County, not LA proper.
One of the things I remember most is how often there is factually no where to go that wasn't private property, a business, or someone's home. Nearly no where at all, despite how much space there was, because of how totally and completely that space is used.
There was almost no place to hide to sleep or even just sit down without getting harassed back then, or otherwise feeling unsafe or exposed.
Parks? All well groomed clear-cut grass, minimal dense shrubbery or trees. Any place that existed like this was also likely had a lot of foot traffic and was a popular urban retreat.
Beaches? Cold, wet and closed at night with clear sightlines and no where to bed down and hide for miles, almost impossible to sleep on during the day due to noise. I accidentally fell asleep on the beach reading a book once at around 19 and still homeless, and someone stole my newish bicycle, wallet, walkman and shoes. My fucking shoes. I had to walk barefoot and in socks across burning hot asphalt bawling my face off to a pay phone to make a collect call to a friend about 3-4 miles down the road, the only person I think might be home. I think I ended up having to walk that whole way because I didn't even have money for the bus and I was too scared to try to ask a stranger for bus fare.
And all of these places are surrounded by mile after square mile of fence-to-fence, yard-to-yard single family homes. Even walking around or trying to get from place to place without a car or money was a dystopian nightmare hellscape of dusty hot concrete and asphalt and precision lawn care. You'd get harassed by the police in various cities a lot just walking around.
Where was left to go? There were the shrubs on the freeways, places under bridges in the big concrete drainage channels, and that was about it.
I ended up next to a freeway in an awkward corner slice of undeveloped greendfield or brownfield. They swept us out of there pretty regularly. I spent like 6 months there in a weird hooch/hut made out of like rattan blinds and basically trash. Ended up getting pretty far into a case of scurvy due to living off off nothing but dumpster-dived McDonald's, malt liquor and tobacco. This is mainly why my teeth are so messed up. (Sometimes I wish I could say it was due to meth, that might have been more fun, really.)
In hindsight there's a lot of things I would have done differently. I would have not waited like 15 years before realizing food stamps or SNAP was a thing for people in my situation. I would have got the hell out of LA and maybe found nature and the confidence that that has brought me. I would have also maybe sought treatment and help with being trans 15 years sooner, but it was harder to get help for that sort of thing back then, so... *shrug*
And today you can see patterns of this in OC and LA, the much, much larger encampments along freeways and greenbelts and flood control channels and people just camping right on sidewalks because of how there's basically just no where for them to go.
posted by loquacious at 1:32 PM on May 28, 2019 [33 favorites]
I was first homeless at 17 and was fleeing an extremely abusive step parent. This would have been Orange County, not LA proper.
One of the things I remember most is how often there is factually no where to go that wasn't private property, a business, or someone's home. Nearly no where at all, despite how much space there was, because of how totally and completely that space is used.
There was almost no place to hide to sleep or even just sit down without getting harassed back then, or otherwise feeling unsafe or exposed.
Parks? All well groomed clear-cut grass, minimal dense shrubbery or trees. Any place that existed like this was also likely had a lot of foot traffic and was a popular urban retreat.
Beaches? Cold, wet and closed at night with clear sightlines and no where to bed down and hide for miles, almost impossible to sleep on during the day due to noise. I accidentally fell asleep on the beach reading a book once at around 19 and still homeless, and someone stole my newish bicycle, wallet, walkman and shoes. My fucking shoes. I had to walk barefoot and in socks across burning hot asphalt bawling my face off to a pay phone to make a collect call to a friend about 3-4 miles down the road, the only person I think might be home. I think I ended up having to walk that whole way because I didn't even have money for the bus and I was too scared to try to ask a stranger for bus fare.
And all of these places are surrounded by mile after square mile of fence-to-fence, yard-to-yard single family homes. Even walking around or trying to get from place to place without a car or money was a dystopian nightmare hellscape of dusty hot concrete and asphalt and precision lawn care. You'd get harassed by the police in various cities a lot just walking around.
Where was left to go? There were the shrubs on the freeways, places under bridges in the big concrete drainage channels, and that was about it.
I ended up next to a freeway in an awkward corner slice of undeveloped greendfield or brownfield. They swept us out of there pretty regularly. I spent like 6 months there in a weird hooch/hut made out of like rattan blinds and basically trash. Ended up getting pretty far into a case of scurvy due to living off off nothing but dumpster-dived McDonald's, malt liquor and tobacco. This is mainly why my teeth are so messed up. (Sometimes I wish I could say it was due to meth, that might have been more fun, really.)
In hindsight there's a lot of things I would have done differently. I would have not waited like 15 years before realizing food stamps or SNAP was a thing for people in my situation. I would have got the hell out of LA and maybe found nature and the confidence that that has brought me. I would have also maybe sought treatment and help with being trans 15 years sooner, but it was harder to get help for that sort of thing back then, so... *shrug*
And today you can see patterns of this in OC and LA, the much, much larger encampments along freeways and greenbelts and flood control channels and people just camping right on sidewalks because of how there's basically just no where for them to go.
posted by loquacious at 1:32 PM on May 28, 2019 [33 favorites]
I for reals-think that there are many liberal NIMBY types who would love a hukou policy!
Absolutely. I’ve seen it literally (not by that name) advocated for in Seattle’s new poisonous NIMBY groups, which are filled with people presenting their “I’m as left wing as it gets, would never vote for a Republican!” bona fides along with suggestions to build a mandatory detox center for homeless people and stop wasting money giving them perks like supportive housing. Invariably comes with a side of “Seattle is just so extreme left, would you believe people accuse ME of being conservative/right wing??!”
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:30 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
Absolutely. I’ve seen it literally (not by that name) advocated for in Seattle’s new poisonous NIMBY groups, which are filled with people presenting their “I’m as left wing as it gets, would never vote for a Republican!” bona fides along with suggestions to build a mandatory detox center for homeless people and stop wasting money giving them perks like supportive housing. Invariably comes with a side of “Seattle is just so extreme left, would you believe people accuse ME of being conservative/right wing??!”
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:30 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
And if anyone has suggestions, Im looking for where I can give time or money to help get “public defacation” forcibly decriminalized in locations that don’t have public toilets (like the 9th circuit ruling on camping in public not being criminal if there’s no alternative).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:33 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:33 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
And if anyone has suggestions, Im looking for where I can give time or money to help get “public defacation” forcibly decriminalized
Wow. Ok, side point?
Even with my history and direct experience with these issues - this is something that wouldn't even cross my mind as a legal or activist option to persue - even as someone who whether housed or not, who also has what is really a healthy and highly efficient if not hyperactive total jerk of a bladder and waste processing system and holy shit the lack of accessible toilets in cities, clean or not, is just bonkers.
It's one of the things I hate most about visiting or being in big cities, that there is basically no where to go to the bathroom without having to spend money or beg for restroom access somewhere.
If you find anything please let us know. Moreover, I'd like to see more public restrooms even if they're bizarre privacy limited robotic self cleaning restrooms.
posted by loquacious at 3:43 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Wow. Ok, side point?
Even with my history and direct experience with these issues - this is something that wouldn't even cross my mind as a legal or activist option to persue - even as someone who whether housed or not, who also has what is really a healthy and highly efficient if not hyperactive total jerk of a bladder and waste processing system and holy shit the lack of accessible toilets in cities, clean or not, is just bonkers.
It's one of the things I hate most about visiting or being in big cities, that there is basically no where to go to the bathroom without having to spend money or beg for restroom access somewhere.
If you find anything please let us know. Moreover, I'd like to see more public restrooms even if they're bizarre privacy limited robotic self cleaning restrooms.
posted by loquacious at 3:43 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
Could we just criminalize cities lacking safe, clean public restrooms instead? It doesn't have to be that expensive to provide facilities. Denver's making an OK start by listing existing facilities and rolling out mobile restrooms. (Article from Citylab with more info.)
posted by asperity at 3:53 PM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
posted by asperity at 3:53 PM on May 28, 2019 [10 favorites]
We just need municipal toilets in the downtowns, with people paid to be there to keep them clean. If that means charging $1 to use, so fucking be it, but even if they're gratis, the cost of doing this can't possibly be as high as the cost of having to power-wash sidewalks like in San Francisco.
posted by ocschwar at 4:59 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 4:59 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
I live in a depopulated city that's literally less than half the size it was in the 1950s but people still bitch about density (and parking). My particular neighborhood has gone from over 3,000 residents in 1940 to less than 500 now but people still fight against any development that will bring new people in or has less than two parking spaces per unit.
posted by octothorpe at 6:12 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:12 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
People have legitimate fears about public restrooms but it's nothing that can't be solved with good design. Without excusing the wrong reasons communities don't support public restrooms, it's important to understand that some concerns aren't completely baseless and, more importantly, that without public support public facilities will never be built and maintained.
I've mentioned the exemplary public restrooms in Tongva Park in Santa Monica previously. I've recently seen a different design with similar characteristics in downtown Paso Robles. The keys to making them (seem) safe are: (1) nowhere for (presumed) creepers to hide, so (2) only the stalls are private, (3) wash spaces are in full public view, and (4) two means of egress if you feel uncomfortable.
You need a central corridor open on both ends with wash spaces in the (open-to view) center and individual stalls on each side. This provides a public facility open to all that addresses concerns about safety, whether valid or imagined.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:49 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
I've mentioned the exemplary public restrooms in Tongva Park in Santa Monica previously. I've recently seen a different design with similar characteristics in downtown Paso Robles. The keys to making them (seem) safe are: (1) nowhere for (presumed) creepers to hide, so (2) only the stalls are private, (3) wash spaces are in full public view, and (4) two means of egress if you feel uncomfortable.
You need a central corridor open on both ends with wash spaces in the (open-to view) center and individual stalls on each side. This provides a public facility open to all that addresses concerns about safety, whether valid or imagined.
posted by sjswitzer at 6:49 PM on May 28, 2019 [5 favorites]
(Note that the author of that piece owns a million dollar Berkeley home.)
Okay, not to overly pick on this specific person, because that's not the point. But it turns out I actually understated the conflict of interest quite a bit: that author also appears to be a landlord with several pricey Bay Area rental properties. Lol slash aaaaaaaargh forever!
posted by en forme de poire at 7:10 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Okay, not to overly pick on this specific person, because that's not the point. But it turns out I actually understated the conflict of interest quite a bit: that author also appears to be a landlord with several pricey Bay Area rental properties. Lol slash aaaaaaaargh forever!
posted by en forme de poire at 7:10 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Maybe you shouldn’t be able to own property you don’t live in, to prevent it from being this whole speculative commodity scheme.
Or like a community land trust, where the trust owns the land under the building and the people who live in the building pay for upkeep but can’t sell it for much more then yu bought it for,
Or something, look there are lots of models,
posted by The Whelk at 7:14 PM on May 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
Or like a community land trust, where the trust owns the land under the building and the people who live in the building pay for upkeep but can’t sell it for much more then yu bought it for,
Or something, look there are lots of models,
posted by The Whelk at 7:14 PM on May 28, 2019 [7 favorites]
We have to sneak through these reforms without anyone knowing.
A 10 story apartment in a single family suburb that you pass on your way to work? Just part of the pleasant background landscape, filtered out by your mind.
A single family suburb with no apartment, where a 10 story place is proposed? The property owners will fight like they've been airdropped into Normandy.
posted by cricketcello at 9:12 PM on May 28, 2019
A 10 story apartment in a single family suburb that you pass on your way to work? Just part of the pleasant background landscape, filtered out by your mind.
A single family suburb with no apartment, where a 10 story place is proposed? The property owners will fight like they've been airdropped into Normandy.
posted by cricketcello at 9:12 PM on May 28, 2019
I would be amazingly pumped if SF would approve Paris level density which is like 5 or 6 stories everywhere.
I would be even more pumped if 90% of those 10,000 tech businesses in San Francisco moved to all the other nice cities of the U.S.A., so SF would become livable for normal people again AND the rest of us could get good jobs without having to move to SF. Turning San Francisco into Hong Kong is like building even more freeway lanes to relieve congestion in Los Angeles.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:41 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I would be even more pumped if 90% of those 10,000 tech businesses in San Francisco moved to all the other nice cities of the U.S.A., so SF would become livable for normal people again AND the rest of us could get good jobs without having to move to SF. Turning San Francisco into Hong Kong is like building even more freeway lanes to relieve congestion in Los Angeles.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:41 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I would be even more pumped if 90% of those 10,000 tech businesses in San Francisco moved to all the other nice cities of the U.S.A., so SF would become livable for normal people
Your variety of NIMBYism merits more respect than what the article is talking about, but that's not saying much.
You're not entitled to seeing your community frozen in amber, or to tell other people whether or not they should live in SF. You're not entitled to demand that the physical housing stock in SF be frozen in amber, especially when entire neighborhoods in SF are death traps waiting for the next earth quake, and could (and should) be replaced with housing stock that will shelter more people and not kill them. Not even when you're "normal people."
posted by ocschwar at 4:57 AM on May 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Your variety of NIMBYism merits more respect than what the article is talking about, but that's not saying much.
You're not entitled to seeing your community frozen in amber, or to tell other people whether or not they should live in SF. You're not entitled to demand that the physical housing stock in SF be frozen in amber, especially when entire neighborhoods in SF are death traps waiting for the next earth quake, and could (and should) be replaced with housing stock that will shelter more people and not kill them. Not even when you're "normal people."
posted by ocschwar at 4:57 AM on May 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
You're not entitled to seeing your community frozen in amber
This is a great turn of phrase because it is exactly what many folks want when it comes to housing stock. I live ~15 miles from Manhattan in a northern NJ suburb, and people talk like the place is still the farmland it was 100+ years ago. We are a SMALL TOWN - can't build an APARTMENT building because then we will be BROOKLYN (which, a, no, and b, you wish, property owners; space like ours in Brooklyn would get mad $$$$). I like this article a lot because it very clearly lays out how this attitude is harmful- I actually posted the article to one of my town FB groups, and man, the silence was deafening.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:44 AM on May 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
This is a great turn of phrase because it is exactly what many folks want when it comes to housing stock. I live ~15 miles from Manhattan in a northern NJ suburb, and people talk like the place is still the farmland it was 100+ years ago. We are a SMALL TOWN - can't build an APARTMENT building because then we will be BROOKLYN (which, a, no, and b, you wish, property owners; space like ours in Brooklyn would get mad $$$$). I like this article a lot because it very clearly lays out how this attitude is harmful- I actually posted the article to one of my town FB groups, and man, the silence was deafening.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:44 AM on May 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
it's important to understand that some concerns aren't completely baseless and, more importantly, that without public support public facilities will never be built and maintained.
Public support or a legal requirement.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:13 AM on May 29, 2019
Public support or a legal requirement.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 10:13 AM on May 29, 2019
Turning San Francisco into Hong Kong is like building even more freeway lanes to relieve congestion in Los Angeles.
It's funny and telling that you immediately went to turning SF into Hong Kong, when not only was nobody suggesting that, but the original post was actually talking about turning streets that look like this into streets that look more like this. And this is within the city of SF proper; the greater Bay Area is astonishingly diffuse and suburban.
You're essentially making the same mistake that 48 Hills is making: you can't reduce the number of techies moving to SF (or equivalently, spread them around to the rest of the country) by restricting the housing supply, because rich techies can always afford to compete for housing. In this respect, housing is totally unlike freeway space. Sure, Facebook employees might complain about the apartments and commutes they can buy for $3500/month; a few might even do something about it and move to slightly more affordable cities like Portland or Los Angeles. But by the time housing is rare enough for techies to be materially affected, you will already have driven out all of the teachers, servers, baristas, lab technicians, electricians, hairdressers, short-order cooks, etc. -- except for the lucky few who bought a long time ago or have rent control, and this second category can never move apartments or they'll have to leave the city. Another possibility, well-documented in the Mission for low-income people with strong community ties, is that they will be forced into secretly living in overcrowded, unsafe tenements. In other words, restricting housing and in-migration is exacerbating exactly the problem it purports to solve.
Indeed, it used to be worthwhile for both lower- and higher-income people to seek opportunity in cities. Now, almost entirely because of the price of housing, it is only worthwhile for high earners -- lawyers, coders, etc.
Regional inequality is a real thing in the USA and has become significantly worse since the 70s, but that has a lot more to do with lax anti-trust enforcement, airline deregulation, failure to pursue things like passenger rail, and the concentration of crazy amounts of capital (take a look at venture capital in Silicon Valley...) than it does with building six-story apartment buildings.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
It's funny and telling that you immediately went to turning SF into Hong Kong, when not only was nobody suggesting that, but the original post was actually talking about turning streets that look like this into streets that look more like this. And this is within the city of SF proper; the greater Bay Area is astonishingly diffuse and suburban.
You're essentially making the same mistake that 48 Hills is making: you can't reduce the number of techies moving to SF (or equivalently, spread them around to the rest of the country) by restricting the housing supply, because rich techies can always afford to compete for housing. In this respect, housing is totally unlike freeway space. Sure, Facebook employees might complain about the apartments and commutes they can buy for $3500/month; a few might even do something about it and move to slightly more affordable cities like Portland or Los Angeles. But by the time housing is rare enough for techies to be materially affected, you will already have driven out all of the teachers, servers, baristas, lab technicians, electricians, hairdressers, short-order cooks, etc. -- except for the lucky few who bought a long time ago or have rent control, and this second category can never move apartments or they'll have to leave the city. Another possibility, well-documented in the Mission for low-income people with strong community ties, is that they will be forced into secretly living in overcrowded, unsafe tenements. In other words, restricting housing and in-migration is exacerbating exactly the problem it purports to solve.
Indeed, it used to be worthwhile for both lower- and higher-income people to seek opportunity in cities. Now, almost entirely because of the price of housing, it is only worthwhile for high earners -- lawyers, coders, etc.
Regional inequality is a real thing in the USA and has become significantly worse since the 70s, but that has a lot more to do with lax anti-trust enforcement, airline deregulation, failure to pursue things like passenger rail, and the concentration of crazy amounts of capital (take a look at venture capital in Silicon Valley...) than it does with building six-story apartment buildings.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:12 PM on May 29, 2019 [13 favorites]
California Democrats dropped the ball on housing package
posted by latkes at 6:53 AM on May 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 6:53 AM on May 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
How changes in financing contributed to the loss of low cost rental units (it's from starving our state pension funds)
posted by latkes at 8:57 AM on May 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 8:57 AM on May 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
the housing affordability crisis is generational warfare
posted by latkes at 8:58 AM on May 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by latkes at 8:58 AM on May 30, 2019 [5 favorites]
Unpacking myths about housing development in the Bay Area (from the SF Bay Sierra Club chapter)
posted by latkes at 4:44 PM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by latkes at 4:44 PM on June 1, 2019 [2 favorites]
Re the “parking rules raise your rent” piece: it’s an interesting idea, but in my neighborhood we have several large apartment buildings going in and there definitely aren’t vast amounts of unused parking in the area around them. I can’t think of anywhere I’ve lived where that’s true.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:47 AM on June 2, 2019
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:47 AM on June 2, 2019
Yeah, valid! Truth is we need to get rid of parking requirements and truth is that will make it harder for everyone to park. Because we desperately need to switch from car-centric design to transit, pedestrian, and light electric (like scooters, ebikes and etrikes) centered urban design. Cars are deadly in the immediate term and killing our planet in the not very long term.
My ish with an urbanist movement that want to get rid of parking requirements (and makes roads narrower and slower) is that I think we have to acknowledge that in current state, we do live in a car centric world. So for the success of such a campaign, and because it's the right thing to do, we need to be throwing ourselves full force into advocacy for fast, free, frequent, modern, safe, well designed public transit everywhere. It's going to mean higher taxes but ultimately a much more livable, cleaner, safer, sustainable city.
posted by latkes at 2:57 PM on June 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
My ish with an urbanist movement that want to get rid of parking requirements (and makes roads narrower and slower) is that I think we have to acknowledge that in current state, we do live in a car centric world. So for the success of such a campaign, and because it's the right thing to do, we need to be throwing ourselves full force into advocacy for fast, free, frequent, modern, safe, well designed public transit everywhere. It's going to mean higher taxes but ultimately a much more livable, cleaner, safer, sustainable city.
posted by latkes at 2:57 PM on June 2, 2019 [4 favorites]
The racist origins of San Francisco's housing crisis
posted by latkes at 3:02 PM on June 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by latkes at 3:02 PM on June 2, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older Danish Architecture | There is only IBM & ITT and AT&T and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Whelk at 7:30 AM on May 28, 2019 [6 favorites]