
The battle to save Silicon Valley's oldest trailer park - japhyr
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/tech-company-v-trailer-park-silicon-valley
======
japhyr
I shared this because the issue is affecting my area as well as SV, and I'm
sure many other areas as well. I live in southeast Alaska, and our housing
costs are some of the highest in the country as well. Here it's a mix of
factors; we live right on the edge of the mountains, next to the ocean, so
there's a shortage of land that's suitable for building. The problem is
exacerbated by well-off people buying up large homes that sit vacant in the
winter and developing lodges that are only used by tourists during the summer.

Just a few days ago there was a heated conversation on our community's
facebook "chatters" group about how online shopping is hurting our community.
Another local business is closing up shop, and people were encouraging others
to shop locally whenever possible. "Encouraging" is a kind word; many were
chastising anyone who talked about shopping through amazon. One person
commented that he had grown up here, and lives on his fishing boat because he
can't afford to buy a home. He says he buys as much as he can through amazon
because it's the only way he can make ends meet. This is a guy who catches the
"wild caught Alaska salmon" that many people ask for in nicer restaurants, or
buy in fish markets like Pike Place in Seattle.

Our community is responding in some interesting ways, like helping people
figure out how to build small homes that are easier to heat efficiently in the
winter. We're looking at more efficient ways to use the land that's available
for building. But all of this might be for nothing in the face of economic
disparity; I wonder if we'll continue to sort things out, or if it will take a
large-scale economic collapse to force the issue. I hope for the former, but I
won't be surprised by the latter.

------
droithomme
If I owned a tiny old trailer park and could sell it for $55 million, I would
definitely do so.

If this is so important to the culture of the city, let the city buy it for
that price and maintain it as a living museum like Colonial Williamsburg
dedicated to educating the public of the history and culture of trailer park
lifestyle.

~~~
pkaye
If you read the article, you would see that the city/county is offering to buy
the trailer park for $39 million.

~~~
ps4fanboy
Why should they get a discount?

~~~
ghshephard
No risk of litigation.

~~~
sokoloff
So, paying $16MM in "protection money" to the city is the answer, then?

------
fwn
It sounds counter intuitive, but preventing the owners from reusing their
property increases uncertainty for anyone investing in existing low income
communities.

While probably good for those few in the short run it could end up making the
low income housing problem worse.

~~~
CyberDildonics
Why are people entitled to low income housing in one of the most expensive
areas to live in in the world.

~~~
panglott
People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be
living on the street?

The bigger problem is that California has so little supply of housing relative
to demand that prices are just astronomical.

~~~
CyberDildonics
> People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be
> living on the street?

I think it's obvious that there are serious problems with supply and demand
but to say a person's options are 'live in one of the most expensive areas in
the world' or 'live on the street' is more than a little ridiculous.

There is pretty clearly the option of not living in an expensive place. Yes it
might make a commute to the same job crazy, yes it's far from ideal, yes it's
not necessary when looking at the system as a whole, but this idea that people
are entitled to stay wherever they are just doesn't work out.

If someone was living in a hollywood mansion and couldn't afford it, people
would say 'move somewhere cheaper'.

~~~
panglott
People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness. Homelessness
is something that the people in that article actually express worry about.

The problem is not that people are entitled to housing that they can't afford.
The problem is that humans need decent housing, and the housing price
situation where they live is created by policy choices. Housing policy has
generated this high-price dynamic that is leading to the removal of poor, low-
income, and other vulnerable people, after changing the rules on them about
where they can live.

Now, it's true that a trailer park is never going to be consistent with any
policy that can effectively bring the supply/demand curve into line enough to
supply decent and affordable housing.

~~~
CyberDildonics
> People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness.

This is another generalization that doesn't hold up in this particular
situation.

This trailer park cost $830 a month 5 years ago.

Don't paint this as 'being cruel to humans' and 'human beings need a place to
live'. Yes there are a lot of rough edges, but this idea that rising housing
costs due to market pressures are some sort of inhuman dynamic in this extreme
outlier situation isn't reasonable. People might have to move and ideally they
would get some sort of money to help them do it as a deal with the developers.

To think that the way something was is the way it needs to be in the future is
irrational.

~~~
panglott
Note that this is an article in which the people actually talk about their
struggles with homelessness and their fears of becoming homeless.

I don't actually disagree that the trailer park should probably be torn down
and be replaced with a denser condo development. And the property owner
certainly has a right to sell the property to developers (gentrification would
not be so problematic if renters had property rights in their home).

Rising housing costs is not at all due to some inhuman market pressure: it is
a policy choice against densification. And surely to think that the way
something was is the way it needs to be in the future is irrational. But
shouldn't that be true for people who live in single-story houses also?

~~~
CyberDildonics
> But shouldn't that be true for people who live in single-story houses also?

That isn't what the article is about.

------
huac
“I don’t know what to tell you. I live down in San Jose. I mean, I can’t even
afford Palo Alto.” - the trailer park owner

------
kqr2
This legal battle has been going on for years. In that amount of time they
could have built more affordable housing as a backup plan however Palo Alto
has been stubborn about that. They portray this as a fight between a greedy
landlord and low income residents but it's really caused by Palo Alto's
stagnant zoning and land use policies.

------
richard_mcp
How high do living expenses have to be before a place has trouble hiring low-
income or blue collar employees? Or will there always be those who are willing
to put in the travel time to fill them?

~~~
ghshephard
When I was working at Netscape in 1996-1998, for the first 18 months I lived
in Oakland, on 17th near Lake Merrit ($500/month). The commute was: Walk to
Bart, Bart to 22nd (pre millbrae), Muni from 22nd to Caltrain, Caltrain (pre
bullet) down to Mountain View, Shuttle to Whisman, Walk to Building. Mostly
reverse this at night.

My commute was 2 hours in the morning, and 2 1/2 hours back at night. It was
miserable, and I would never wish it on anyone. I feel for these people
possibly losing their homes (some who have lived there for 30+ years!).

~~~
CyberDildonics
Are people losing their homes or are they getting their homes bought?

~~~
ghshephard
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but, the ground truth is
there are people who've lived there for 30+ years and pay $1000/month for
their home (which probably has a net value of $5k or less) - and when the
trailer park shuts down, they really have nowhere to go.

So look, I read Ayn Rand when I was in college, I get economic impact of rent-
control, and how it actually ends up hurting the lower socio economic strata -
It's not like I'm ignorant of all these things.

It's just, at the end of the day - I can appreciate how it would suck to have
your entire world ripped apart.

------
Kinnard
They should build a large multi-unit apartment building mostly for tech
workers and set aside a number of units for the people who live in the trailer
park now. That seems like the move to me.

~~~
kec
So where do the current residents live for the year or two it takes you to
build your new apartment building? How do you expect residents to be able to
afford their rent doubling or tripling in the new building once it's built?

~~~
Kinnard
If the plot is being sold for $50 Million and Real Estate Developers are
getting involved there's more than enough cash on the table to put several
families up for a year or two especially if they're paying part of the rent.

~~~
kec
So what happens after "a year or two"? Do you expect the new owners to agree
to rent control in the new building for the families which used to live in the
trailer park?

~~~
Kinnard
Yes, this is a large multiunit multistory multimillion dollar housing
development for techworkers. They can handle having a few units for a few
families, and they can build/budget with that in mind.

