Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4808
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:50 am

A group of women squatting illegally in a temporarily vacant $500,000 house received an unwelcome court order to leave the property. The company that owns the house, finding itself under zero legal obligation to do anything for the women, offered to assist them in finding suitable housing, including offering them two months' FREE FREAKING RENT in the process.

Their response, on Twitter, was that the company was "disingenuous" in "pretending to care about Black families."

This is the kind of hyper-entitled bullshit that generates votes for Trump. :banghead:
Pancakes are delicious.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:00 am

Airstud wrote:
A group of women squatting illegally in a temporarily vacant $500,000 house received an unwelcome court order to leave the property. The company that owns the house, finding itself under zero legal obligation to do anything for the women, offered to assist them in finding suitable housing, including offering them two months' FREE FREAKING RENT in the process.

Their response, on Twitter, was that the company was "disingenuous" in "pretending to care about Black families."

This is the kind of hyper-entitled bullshit that generates votes for Trump. :banghead:


Have been following this case for weeks - it’s ridiculous. Squatters can take ownership of abandoned homes under CA’s adverse possession law, but that *does not apply to unoccupied houses with a legal owner who pays the property taxes* - these homeless women have been hoodwinked by their attorneys.

Investor homes remaining unoccupied for long periods of time does make the housing crisis worse, but this is not a remedy at all :sarcastic:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21224
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:00 am

These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:03 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


Nobody is denying that there are serious inequality issues in the larger society - that doesn’t change the fact that property rights are pretty clear-cut in CA and they have no claim to this house.

Also nobody forced these mothers to have children.
Last edited by Aaron747 on Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Jetty
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 1:15 am

seb146 wrote:
Keep in mind these women have children.

Also keep in mind being a parent is something of their own making. They are primarily responsible for being a mother without financial stability and/or decent housing.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:09 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.

How exactly is this a Republican issue?

California - especially the Bay Area where this is happening - is one of the most liberal areas (if not, the most liberal area) in the country and hasn't been under Republican control in who knows how long. The Democratic party literally owns the state, especially the Bay Area, and has for some time.

The Democratic party and politicians in California have failed these people, not the Republican party.
 
N583JB
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:35 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


The good news is that the Oakland jail will provide free housing and meals for them. Stealing is against the law, after all. Lock them up.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21224
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:00 am

SoCalPilot wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.

How exactly is this a Republican issue?

California - especially the Bay Area where this is happening - is one of the most liberal areas (if not, the most liberal area) in the country and hasn't been under Republican control in who knows how long. The Democratic party literally owns the state, especially the Bay Area, and has for some time.

The Democratic party and politicians in California have failed these people, not the Republican party.


California has conservative and corporate farms as well as working poor as well as the environment as well as millions of other issues. Not everything in California is perfect like it is in Alabama. California, especially the Bay Area where there are people of hundreds of different cultures and income brackets, has not been under Republican control for a reason.

They don't care about putting Christianity first and putting white heterosexual men first. OH THE HORROR!! Thinking of everyone including homeless families! How dare they!

I am so sick and tired of this tired lying Republican trope of "we care about life". These Republican posts prove they do not and proves why California is how they are.

If California is so awful, why is property worth so much? Why are land owners (guess which party they give money to?) turning away families? Republicans whine about California and laws and regulations but they do exactly what Republicans want. Let corporations be and let people be. The problem is, Republicans can not and refuse to separate the two. They are two separate things. Corporations are not people.

Corporations. Are. Not. NOT!!!! People. Republicans have taken advantage of this Republican talking point. And exploited this in California. And they complain about it.

Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!

Anyway, you Republicans are all jealous on how wealthy California is under Democratic rule. You all see your side does not work. Trickle down does not work. California proves it. And Republicans hate it. Think about it:

Would you build the Pyramids with just one block of sandstone as the base? Does that one block support tons of weight? According to Republicans, it does. Science and math (on the side of Democrats) does not.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 21224
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:02 am

N583JB wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


The good news is that the Oakland jail will provide free housing and meals for them. Stealing is against the law, after all. Lock them up.


Santa Rita jail is "forced" to give women health care and reproductive products and feminine hygiene products. Which Republicans do not ever EVER want for any woman ever because how dare they be women or whatever.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 4471
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:04 am

I personally hate the whole “living rent free in [insert person here]’s head” but I feel like it couldn’t be more applicable here. Whether in Oakland, prison, or OP’s or SoCalPilot’s or JB’s head, they’ll never have to pay a dime.
 
Airstud
Topic Author
Posts: 4808
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:18 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them.


Failed them how? By not providing them with housing out of the blue? They have never done that for me; I work & pay for my housing. So private industry and government have failed me as well, right?
Pancakes are delicious.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:26 am

seb146 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


The good news is that the Oakland jail will provide free housing and meals for them. Stealing is against the law, after all. Lock them up.


Santa Rita jail is "forced" to give women health care and reproductive products and feminine hygiene products. Which Republicans do not ever EVER want for any woman ever because how dare they be women or whatever.


Mmkay, maybe that’s the case in some harebrained red counties, but what’s that got to do with squatters in Oakland, CA?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:33 am

Airstud wrote:
A group of women squatting illegally in a temporarily vacant $500,000 house received an unwelcome court order to leave the property. The company that owns the house, finding itself under zero legal obligation to do anything for the women, offered to assist them in finding suitable housing, including offering them two months' FREE FREAKING RENT in the process.

Their response, on Twitter, was that the company was "disingenuous" in "pretending to care about Black families."

This is the kind of hyper-entitled bullshit that generates votes for Trump. :banghead:


California housing is a strange beast. No one can afford it, but the current home owners won't agree to looser zoning laws that allow housing to be built so that there's enough supply for something to become affordable.

...This is not federal politics, it's state and local level. The federal government has no say on housing policy. It's not even a partisan issue as I've found with NIMBY's locally they're just as likely to be (R)s as (D)s. What they have in common is being old people who are afraid of change and bought houses before the housing shortage hit crisis levels and are ignorant of the fact that middle class people can't afford housing now.

Californians, fix your damn zoning laws. If you think your housing costs suck, do me a favor and get involved in state and municipal elections and elect people who will fix them.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:00 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


This is theft. They do not own those properties.

Personally I don't think we should allow foreign ownership of residential property in the US. Many by up houses and never use them and that distorts the market.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:02 am

seb146 wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.

How exactly is this a Republican issue?

California - especially the Bay Area where this is happening - is one of the most liberal areas (if not, the most liberal area) in the country and hasn't been under Republican control in who knows how long. The Democratic party literally owns the state, especially the Bay Area, and has for some time.

The Democratic party and politicians in California have failed these people, not the Republican party.


California has conservative and corporate farms as well as working poor as well as the environment as well as millions of other issues. Not everything in California is perfect like it is in Alabama. California, especially the Bay Area where there are people of hundreds of different cultures and income brackets, has not been under Republican control for a reason.

They don't care about putting Christianity first and putting white heterosexual men first. OH THE HORROR!! Thinking of everyone including homeless families! How dare they!

I am so sick and tired of this tired lying Republican trope of "we care about life". These Republican posts prove they do not and proves why California is how they are.

If California is so awful, why is property worth so much? Why are land owners (guess which party they give money to?) turning away families? Republicans whine about California and laws and regulations but they do exactly what Republicans want. Let corporations be and let people be. The problem is, Republicans can not and refuse to separate the two. They are two separate things. Corporations are not people.

Corporations. Are. Not. NOT!!!! People. Republicans have taken advantage of this Republican talking point. And exploited this in California. And they complain about it.

Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!

Anyway, you Republicans are all jealous on how wealthy California is under Democratic rule. You all see your side does not work. Trickle down does not work. California proves it. And Republicans hate it. Think about it:

Would you build the Pyramids with just one block of sandstone as the base? Does that one block support tons of weight? According to Republicans, it does. Science and math (on the side of Democrats) does not.


You didn't even attempt to answer his question. What in the world does the GOP have to do with the Bay Area of California?
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:07 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


This is theft. They do not own those properties.

Personally I don't think we should allow foreign ownership of residential property in the US. Many by up houses and never use them and that distorts the market.


If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:12 am

Jouhou wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


This is theft. They do not own those properties.

Personally I don't think we should allow foreign ownership of residential property in the US. Many by up houses and never use them and that distorts the market.


If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)


Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

This is theft. They do not own those properties.

Personally I don't think we should allow foreign ownership of residential property in the US. Many by up houses and never use them and that distorts the market.


If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)


Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.


Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:55 am

Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Jouhou wrote:

If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)


Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.


Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.


Yeah we bitch about the state of public transportation on the east coast but it's nearly non existent on the west coast. People really need to look at the permitting statistics though for objective evidence of what is going wrong. It takes time to parse though, it's a whole hobby in itself to the extent that being into aviation and keeping up to date on relevant information and understanding it is.

Modern politics makes it hard for people to discern what the truth is. This is a case where objective statistics make it clear as day.
 
Redd
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:13 am

seb146 wrote:
-

They don't care about putting Christianity first and putting white heterosexual men first. OH THE HORROR!! Thinking of everyone including homeless families! How dare they!



Considering white's make up about half of the homeless population, and men make up about 70% of the homeless population, I'd say that white Christian heterosexual groups are doing a pretty bad job of putting white Christian heteros first.

On topic: America has a horrible welfare system which needs to be fixed in my opinion. In Poland, which is pretty damn poor compared to the USA, you almost never see homeless people even in the big cities, if you do it's by choice mostly (Being given a home or shelter comes with the caveat of not being able to consume alcohol). Let alone mother's with children. Every time I go back to visit Canada or the States I'm shocked by the number of homeless people and deeply saddened.

But that being said, squatting is absurd, and the fact that these women do not want to take 2 months free rent and try to get back on their feet is pretty pathetic.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 12928
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:36 am

seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


I love how now taking matters in their own hands equates breaking the law and then demanding the house. I have to tell you bizarro world is alive and well in California.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:40 am

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


I love how now taking matters in their own hands equates breaking the law and then demanding the house. I have to tell you bizarro world is alive and well in California.


Oh please Nick, as evidenced by some posts here, not everyone in CA has lost their marbles. I am in a $45B CA industry that is doing quite well, and that’s thanks to industrious people and hard work, nothing bizarro world about it.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:52 am

Jouhou wrote:

If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)



Indeed. I do not know how it is in Bay Area, but I would suspect that it is much the same as here in Los Angeles County. In my city, we voted last year to remove the possibility of more than two units being built on a single residential property. Since much of this town is somewhat congested most days, I am good with this. But I also understand how this is becoming problematic in other ways. IIUTC, our public transportation funding here will not increase anyway with more multi-units. . .



Aaron747 wrote:

Oh please Nick, as evidenced by some posts here, not everyone in CA has lost their marbles. I am in a $45B CA industry that is doing quite well, and that’s thanks to industrious people and hard work, nothing bizarro world about it.


Perhaps you were expecting an intellectually honest opinion there?

In any case, most of these Haters have never even been here, and would likely have a hard time finding the aforementioned cities on a map. I do find it somewhat amusing that they assume CA is some form of 'Bizarro World' (And seriously, what the hell is that supposed to be anyway? Some sort of 1950's Comic Book Reference perhaps??), and just think everything here just fell out of the sky one afternoon...

CA would not be what it is -effectively a second United States all on its own- if we were not constantly bringing in the best and brightest.

We do have things to improve on though.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
N757ST
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:14 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Jouhou wrote:

If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)



Indeed. I do not know how it is in Bay Area, but I would suspect that it is much the same as here in Los Angeles County. In my city, we voted last year to remove the possibility of more than two units being built on a single residential property. Since much of this town is somewhat congested most days, I am good with this. But I also understand how this is becoming problematic in other ways. IIUTC, our public transportation funding here will not increase anyway with more multi-units. . .



Aaron747 wrote:

Oh please Nick, as evidenced by some posts here, not everyone in CA has lost their marbles. I am in a $45B CA industry that is doing quite well, and that’s thanks to industrious people and hard work, nothing bizarro world about it.


Perhaps you were expecting an intellectually honest opinion there?

In any case, most of these Haters have never even been here, and would likely have a hard time finding the aforementioned cities on a map. I do find it somewhat amusing that they assume CA is some form of 'Bizarro World' (And seriously, what the hell is that supposed to be anyway? Some sort of 1950's Comic Book Reference perhaps??), and just think everything here just fell out of the sky one afternoon...

CA would not be what it is -effectively a second United States all on its own- if we were not constantly bringing in the best and brightest.

We do have things to improve on though.



And here we have the problem. Further restrictions in zoning laws mean new housing effectively can’t be built, or worse yet with an influx of money and people those moving in are buying multiple homes to combine lots and further restricting the access of people to housing. You talk that you’re bringing in the best and brightest, but if they’re arriving en masse with zero new housing coming online, then either you better start shipping the not so bright and not the best out or you are going to see them eventually arrive at the bottom of the “housing food chain” which is living in a tent at San Francisco town hall. If your town is both expanding and reducing density it’s a real problem, and it will lead to homelessness. The bay especially needs to scale back regulations on zoning, and needs to start building upward, otherwise you are going to see this problem get far worse.

And yes, I often am in the bay and the basin. I’ll be in the bay tomm and LA next week... I see them weekly and the homeless problem in the bay is especially under-reported, not over. I have seen first hand how out of control the problem is becoming in San Francisco.

As for the original post, they’re thieves. Seb... I don’t know if you have ever owned property, but what would you do if these women just decided your basement looked like a nice place to set up shop. I don’t think you’d be so friendly, in fact you’d call the police and they’d be arrest for breaking and entering. Planting yourself into someone else’s property isn’t pulling your bootstraps, it’s theft plain and simple.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7469
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!


In US they are. Corporations are actually above people. Citizens United ruling confirms it.

So better option is to rather than fighting the system, just incorporate yourself.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:30 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


I love how now taking matters in their own hands equates breaking the law and then demanding the house. I have to tell you bizarro world is alive and well in California.


Private property is one of the first things 'socialism' takes out when they takeover government. Perhaps this is the first step?
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12126
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:07 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Personally I don't think we should allow foreign ownership of residential property in the US. Many by up houses and never use them and that distorts the market.


They're on AirBnB though, so are used.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:08 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


I love how now taking matters in their own hands equates breaking the law and then demanding the house. I have to tell you bizarro world is alive and well in California.


Private property is one of the first things 'socialism' takes out when they takeover government. Perhaps this is the first step?


What in the world are you talking about? Private property rights are fairly strong in CA. And at the national level, the co-sponsor of bipartisan property rights bill HR1689 in 2017 was a House member from CA. Do more research.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
N583JB
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
SoCalPilot wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.

How exactly is this a Republican issue?

California - especially the Bay Area where this is happening - is one of the most liberal areas (if not, the most liberal area) in the country and hasn't been under Republican control in who knows how long. The Democratic party literally owns the state, especially the Bay Area, and has for some time.

The Democratic party and politicians in California have failed these people, not the Republican party.


California has conservative and corporate farms as well as working poor as well as the environment as well as millions of other issues. Not everything in California is perfect like it is in Alabama. California, especially the Bay Area where there are people of hundreds of different cultures and income brackets, has not been under Republican control for a reason.

They don't care about putting Christianity first and putting white heterosexual men first. OH THE HORROR!! Thinking of everyone including homeless families! How dare they!

I am so sick and tired of this tired lying Republican trope of "we care about life". These Republican posts prove they do not and proves why California is how they are.

If California is so awful, why is property worth so much? Why are land owners (guess which party they give money to?) turning away families? Republicans whine about California and laws and regulations but they do exactly what Republicans want. Let corporations be and let people be. The problem is, Republicans can not and refuse to separate the two. They are two separate things. Corporations are not people.

Corporations. Are. Not. NOT!!!! People. Republicans have taken advantage of this Republican talking point. And exploited this in California. And they complain about it.

Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!

Anyway, you Republicans are all jealous on how wealthy California is under Democratic rule. You all see your side does not work. Trickle down does not work. California proves it. And Republicans hate it. Think about it:

Would you build the Pyramids with just one block of sandstone as the base? Does that one block support tons of weight? According to Republicans, it does. Science and math (on the side of Democrats) does not.


Corporations are not people, you are right. That still doesn't give you the right to steal from a corporations. I think a new Tesla would be much more fuel efficient than my current vehicle, but I don't want to pay for one. Would you advocate stealing one?
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:11 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

I love how now taking matters in their own hands equates breaking the law and then demanding the house. I have to tell you bizarro world is alive and well in California.


Private property is one of the first things 'socialism' takes out when they takeover government. Perhaps this is the first step?


What in the world are you talking about? Private property rights are fairly strong in CA. And at the national level, the co-sponsor of bipartisan property rights bill HR1689 in 2017 was a House member from CA. Do more research.


Have not said the contrary, if we begin to encourage people to go into private property.. this might be the beginning of something worse.

I am Cuban-American, my parents fled Cuba because the Communist regime took away their property. History has a habit of repeating itself. Hopefully CA will keep property rights strong.
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
N583JB
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:15 pm

seb146 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
seb146 wrote:
These homeless mothers took matters into their own hands after private industry and government both failed them. After months and months of living with their children on the streets. They found bootstraps to pull themselves up by and they are told it's not good enough.

Keep in mind these women have children. But, corporations are the victims in all of this. This problem has been growing as corporations and the Republican party decide profit is more important than people. This will generate more votes for Democrats who are tired of Republicans "party before country" and "profits before people" rhetoric.


The good news is that the Oakland jail will provide free housing and meals for them. Stealing is against the law, after all. Lock them up.


Santa Rita jail is "forced" to give women health care and reproductive products and feminine hygiene products. Which Republicans do not ever EVER want for any woman ever because how dare they be women or whatever.


Don't know what that has to do with criminals knowingly breaking the law and getting arrested. Are you suggesting that you want the Democrats to pander to criminals?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12126
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:18 pm

I'd like to invest in a flat to rent in the future, so any story about squatting triggers me, however considering the cost of housing there (I visited last October) I can understand the answer. You can have a full time, OK paid job and still be unable to afford housing.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Aesma wrote:
I'd like to invest in a flat to rent in the future, so any story about squatting triggers me, however considering the cost of housing there (I visited last October) I can understand the answer. You can have a full time, OK paid job and still be unable to afford housing.


That's when moving to Nevada or Texas come into play.
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
NIKV69
Posts: 12928
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:09 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:


In any case, most of these Haters have never even been here, and would likely have a hard time finding the aforementioned cities on a map. I do find it somewhat amusing that they assume CA is some form of 'Bizarro World' (And seriously, what the hell is that supposed to be anyway? Some sort of 1950's Comic Book Reference perhaps??), and just think everything here just fell out of the sky one afternoon...


I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective well we all have our opinions but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/0 ... alifornia/


DarkSnowyNight wrote:


CA would not be what it is -effectively a second United States all on its own- if we were not constantly bringing in the best and brightest.


It's more of a second Europe it doesn't reflect the USA as a whole which is why people are leaving the state.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

We do have things to improve on though.


Too far gone and past the point of no return. The entitlement class will just keep electing people who support the current status quo.
Nikon from day one, Nikon till I die.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:30 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Jouhou wrote:

If you look at the ratio of homes permitted to jobs added for the state of California, they're worst in the nation. They're adding too many jobs and aren't coming remotely close to building enough housing. The problem is 100% zoning laws, as seen with the worst-in-nation permitting to jobs ratio. (I'm not sure if they're still the worst, but considering how their housing costs are still insane I'm going to guess this is likely still the case even if they've improved)


Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.


Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.

A couple thoughts:


1. Could we all agree then on the following changes to property tax regulations?
Permit the wealthy foreign investors to purchase their properties. But tax the living daylights out of the sale and property. Sorry, you don't live here, so your tax rate is going to be several times higher in an effort to mitigate the market distortion, unless:
a. The home is their primary residence (sorry your college student kids don't count), implying thus...
b. They are a US citizen or resident alien

2. With regards to loosening zoning laws, that comes with its own concerns. Let's say I just mortgaged a property in Pacific Heights, which means it isn't cheap. I now have a 30 year obligation, unless I get lucky, even then, I am invested to the tune of over one million dollars. Now you're telling me it's time to build high rises that are a) have the potential in and of themselves to lower my property value by increased supply and b) going to compound that by potentially taking away my million dollar view? As a voter I would look at that long and hard, not because I don't want the icky brown people to live near me, but because now I'm underwater on this home that I bought in good faith and now I'm in a terrible financial spot. Rapid relaxation of zoning laws has the potential to destabilize a housing market, and that's the unfortunate Catch-22 of the situation. Would it have been great if 30 years ago if zoning laws were changed? Of course, but it's also not fair to those who will be ruined for following the rules that have existed. AND THEN, who are you going to tax to pay for all these great social programs...

3. It has never been cheap to live in San Francisco--in 1950 it was twice as expensive as the national average to live in San Francisco. It's currently a little bit more than double, so while it has increased, let's not get lost in the hyperbole. This conversation has been had for over a hundred years. There are plenty of areas I can't afford to live. It's callous, and I don't really care, but if you can't afford to live somewhere...go somewhere that you can. At some point, literally any point, most people still have to be responsible for themselves and while we can acknowledge struggles, we CANNOT absolve every single person in hard times of this responsibility. No one is arguing that expensive real estate markets squeeze people out. But let's be real, if you're priced out of a rental market because your job skills only qualify you to ask for fries (I'm not saying that's not hard, honest work, but part of being an adult is acknowledging cold hard reality), then you need to be asking that question in Cleveland, Indy, or Milwaukee, where you can rent a small apartment for not a lot of money. These ladies clearly don't have any social supports in Oakland, otherwise they wouldn't be squatting. They would be at least crashing on someone's floor. If they're that disconnected from social resources, maybe having a stable home in another town will be better for them. I'll happily support a tax payer funded initiative to help people search for the jobs they need, and get people to a place they can afford to live. It's cheaper than the ER visits or extra law enforcement action that inevitably ensues when these folks are left out on the streets.

4. A discussion needs to be had about how it isn't just "liberal" policies on the West Coast influencing homelessness. It's also the weather. Whether it's by choice due to substance (sorry, it's 2020 and we all grew up with DARE and "Just Say No," A&E's "Intervention," and all that nonsense--at it's core it was still a choice to start using) use or severe mental illness, people can survive outside in all of the West Coast cities because it doesn't get life threateningly cold. Would they rather have shelter? Of course. Should we provide for those who literally do not have the ability to take care of themselves? Absolutely. Do many of them, given the choice, prefer to stay away from what shelter resources there are? Absolutely, and out west and down south they can (just ask Austin, Dallas, and Phoenix). The coldest of the bunch, Seattle, rarely gets below the 20s. While that is lose-your-mind cold for someone from the area, that is not dangerous to the homeless population. Is it pleasant? No. But people are not going to freeze to the sidewalks they way they would in the legitimately severe cold of the Midwest and Northeast. And the cities have never been forced to plan accordingly. New York has several times the homeless population of Seattle, but it also has twenty times the shelter beds. Different numbers but same story in Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, I could go on. These cities also have notorious "police brutality" cases.

5. We also need to observe that some cities are a victim of their own success. In comparison to the places I've lived and worked, Seattle and to a lesser extent San Francisco does not have a blighted area of the city. Are there lower SES areas and places you wouldn't want to find yourself after dark? Absolutely. But Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill just do not compare to Englewood and North Lawndale in Chicago, or Cleveland's Central or Mount Pleasant and it's a joke to even suggest as such. Though awful, and crime ridden, these blighted areas also provide a place to go, where people can live for not a lot of money.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:32 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective well we all have our opinions but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/0 ... alifornia/


There are a lot of people leaving the state, but they are largely either under-educated or conservatives, according to available data. Lots of articles around featuring right-leaning folks who have opted to leave, particularly retirees. But don't let a good story get in the way of facts, because large numbers of people are still arriving as well:

Latest American Community Survey data from 2017:

More people left California (661,026) than arrived (523,131) from other U.S. states. But for the nation’s most populous state, with 39 million residents, that amounted to a tiny fraction in net departures: just 0.35%.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi- ... story.html

In the central coast wine country, we get a lot of people who are leaving the Bay Area or LA for a more chill life. And the wine industry attracts employees from all western states, and places as far flung as South Africa and New Zealand.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:38 pm

luckyone wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.


Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.

A couple thoughts:


1. Could we all agree then on the following changes to property tax regulations?
Permit the wealthy foreign investors to purchase their properties. But tax the living daylights out of the sale and property. Sorry, you don't live here, so your tax rate is going to be several times higher in an effort to mitigate the market distortion, unless:
a. The home is their primary residence (sorry your college student kids don't count), implying thus...
b. They are a US citizen or resident alien

2. With regards to loosening zoning laws, that comes with its own concerns. Let's say I just mortgaged a property in Pacific Heights, which means it isn't cheap. I now have a 30 year obligation, unless I get lucky, even then, I am invested to the tune of over one million dollars. Now you're telling me it's time to build high rises that are a) have the potential in and of themselves to lower my property value by increased supply and b) going to compound that by potentially taking away my million dollar view? As a voter I would look at that long and hard, not because I don't want the icky brown people to live near me, but because now I'm underwater on this home that I bought in good faith and now I'm in a terrible financial spot. Rapid relaxation of zoning laws has the potential to destabilize a housing market, and that's the unfortunate Catch-22 of the situation. Would it have been great if 30 years ago if zoning laws were changed? Of course, but it's also not fair to those who will be ruined for following the rules that have existed. AND THEN, who are you going to tax to pay for all these great social programs...

3. It has never been cheap to live in San Francisco--in 1950 it was twice as expensive as the national average to live in San Francisco. It's currently a little bit more than double, so while it has increased, let's not get lost in the hyperbole. This conversation has been had for over a hundred years. There are plenty of areas I can't afford to live. It's callous, and I don't really care, but if you can't afford to live somewhere...go somewhere that you can. At some point, literally any point, most people still have to be responsible for themselves and while we can acknowledge struggles, we CANNOT absolve every single person in hard times of this responsibility. No one is arguing that expensive real estate markets squeeze people out. But let's be real, if you're priced out of a rental market because your job skills only qualify you to ask for fries (I'm not saying that's not hard, honest work, but part of being an adult is acknowledging cold hard reality), then you need to be asking that question in Cleveland, Indy, or Milwaukee, where you can rent a small apartment for not a lot of money. These ladies clearly don't have any social supports in Oakland, otherwise they wouldn't be squatting. They would be at least crashing on someone's floor. If they're that disconnected from social resources, maybe having a stable home in another town will be better for them. I'll happily support a tax payer funded initiative to help people search for the jobs they need, and get people to a place they can afford to live. It's cheaper than the ER visits or extra law enforcement action that inevitably ensues when these folks are left out on the streets.

4. A discussion needs to be had about how it isn't just "liberal" policies on the West Coast influencing homelessness. It's also the weather. Whether it's by choice due to substance (sorry, it's 2020 and we all grew up with DARE and "Just Say No," A&E's "Intervention," and all that nonsense--at it's core it was still a choice to start using) use or severe mental illness, people can survive outside in all of the West Coast cities because it doesn't get life threateningly cold. Would they rather have shelter? Of course. Should we provide for those who literally do not have the ability to take care of themselves? Absolutely. Do many of them, given the choice, prefer to stay away from what shelter resources there are? Absolutely, and out west and down south they can (just ask Austin, Dallas, and Phoenix). The coldest of the bunch, Seattle, rarely gets below the 20s. While that is lose-your-mind cold for someone from the area, that is not dangerous to the homeless population. Is it pleasant? No. But people are not going to freeze to the sidewalks they way they would in the legitimately severe cold of the Midwest and Northeast. And the cities have never been forced to plan accordingly. New York has several times the homeless population of Seattle, but it also has twenty times the shelter beds. Different numbers but same story in Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, I could go on. These cities also have notorious "police brutality" cases.

5. We also need to observe that some cities are a victim of their own success. In comparison to the places I've lived and worked, Seattle and to a lesser extent San Francisco does not have a blighted area of the city. Are there lower SES areas and places you wouldn't want to find yourself after dark? Absolutely. But Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill just do not compare to Englewood and North Lawndale in Chicago, or Cleveland's Central or Mount Pleasant and it's a joke to even suggest as such. Though awful, and crime ridden, these blighted areas also provide a place to go, where people can live for not a lot of money.


All good points - my only quibble would be with #2. A lot of Silicon Valley development happened on the periphery of residential areas - the 237 corridor to Milpitas, Google locating itself near the baylands kitty corner from NASA Ames, and Facebook's campus out by the salt flats in Palo Alto. There is 2 solid miles of lowrise office parks north of 101 near SJC - all of these areas would have been well-served to be rezoned with apartments on all sides of the office parks. It could easily have been done in the 1980s and 1990s - probably nobody thought of it. It would cost a lot more to do now, but I'm sure smart planners could figure out a few hundred parcels that still have potential. The problem is that a lot of these companies have generated thousands of jobs, but they only saw the need to start getting involved in regional policy solutions once things had already blown up. It's 15 years too late to really make a dent now.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7753
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 5:25 pm

Airstud wrote:
Their response, on Twitter, was that the company was "disingenuous" in "pretending to care about Black families."

At the risk of sounding racist, this is why sometimes I have no sympathy for some Black people. Even when breaking the law, they pull out the race card, as if being Black (and Whites' treatment of Blacks in the past and today) is a fail-safe excuse to do as they please. The law is clear and these women had no claim to the house. Do we empathize with their plight? Yes. Being homeless is not something people choose to be. But it does not give you the right to claim any property either.

As an example, the last time I was in Oakland I was visiting DocLightning and was taking BART to SFO. While waiting, a homeless man came up to the platform, sneaked to the elevator hall, and peed. I know because I saw him lowering his pants as he walked and was already tinkling. The man was Black. How much will you bet me that if I had called the authorities I would have been all over the news as a racist, uncaring person? I don't pay taxes in CA (much less Oakland), but I would be very ticked off to know that if that's what happened at the platform, imagine the streets (where, yes, I have seen s#!t too).

Homelessness should be addressed, no question about it. But given that some people have no regards to property (public or private), how do we solve it?

AirWorthy99 wrote:
That's when moving to Nevada or Texas come into play.
Don't know if you've heard, but moving costs money too. Even dumping everything you have and starting fresh, there's still a major investment to make.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:22 pm

luckyone wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Agreed. The restrictions are ridiculous. Some cities refuse to permit structures over three stories. In many places the only way to build anything meaningful would be high rise apartments and condominiums.


Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.

A couple thoughts:


1. Could we all agree then on the following changes to property tax regulations?
Permit the wealthy foreign investors to purchase their properties. But tax the living daylights out of the sale and property. Sorry, you don't live here, so your tax rate is going to be several times higher in an effort to mitigate the market distortion, unless:
a. The home is their primary residence (sorry your college student kids don't count), implying thus...
b. They are a US citizen or resident alien

2. With regards to loosening zoning laws, that comes with its own concerns. Let's say I just mortgaged a property in Pacific Heights, which means it isn't cheap. I now have a 30 year obligation, unless I get lucky, even then, I am invested to the tune of over one million dollars. Now you're telling me it's time to build high rises that are a) have the potential in and of themselves to lower my property value by increased supply and b) going to compound that by potentially taking away my million dollar view? As a voter I would look at that long and hard, not because I don't want the icky brown people to live near me, but because now I'm underwater on this home that I bought in good faith and now I'm in a terrible financial spot. Rapid relaxation of zoning laws has the potential to destabilize a housing market, and that's the unfortunate Catch-22 of the situation. Would it have been great if 30 years ago if zoning laws were changed? Of course, but it's also not fair to those who will be ruined for following the rules that have existed. AND THEN, who are you going to tax to pay for all these great social programs...

3. It has never been cheap to live in San Francisco--in 1950 it was twice as expensive as the national average to live in San Francisco. It's currently a little bit more than double, so while it has increased, let's not get lost in the hyperbole. This conversation has been had for over a hundred years. There are plenty of areas I can't afford to live. It's callous, and I don't really care, but if you can't afford to live somewhere...go somewhere that you can. At some point, literally any point, most people still have to be responsible for themselves and while we can acknowledge struggles, we CANNOT absolve every single person in hard times of this responsibility. No one is arguing that expensive real estate markets squeeze people out. But let's be real, if you're priced out of a rental market because your job skills only qualify you to ask for fries (I'm not saying that's not hard, honest work, but part of being an adult is acknowledging cold hard reality), then you need to be asking that question in Cleveland, Indy, or Milwaukee, where you can rent a small apartment for not a lot of money. These ladies clearly don't have any social supports in Oakland, otherwise they wouldn't be squatting. They would be at least crashing on someone's floor. If they're that disconnected from social resources, maybe having a stable home in another town will be better for them. I'll happily support a tax payer funded initiative to help people search for the jobs they need, and get people to a place they can afford to live. It's cheaper than the ER visits or extra law enforcement action that inevitably ensues when these folks are left out on the streets.

4. A discussion needs to be had about how it isn't just "liberal" policies on the West Coast influencing homelessness. It's also the weather. Whether it's by choice due to substance (sorry, it's 2020 and we all grew up with DARE and "Just Say No," A&E's "Intervention," and all that nonsense--at it's core it was still a choice to start using) use or severe mental illness, people can survive outside in all of the West Coast cities because it doesn't get life threateningly cold. Would they rather have shelter? Of course. Should we provide for those who literally do not have the ability to take care of themselves? Absolutely. Do many of them, given the choice, prefer to stay away from what shelter resources there are? Absolutely, and out west and down south they can (just ask Austin, Dallas, and Phoenix). The coldest of the bunch, Seattle, rarely gets below the 20s. While that is lose-your-mind cold for someone from the area, that is not dangerous to the homeless population. Is it pleasant? No. But people are not going to freeze to the sidewalks they way they would in the legitimately severe cold of the Midwest and Northeast. And the cities have never been forced to plan accordingly. New York has several times the homeless population of Seattle, but it also has twenty times the shelter beds. Different numbers but same story in Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, I could go on. These cities also have notorious "police brutality" cases.

5. We also need to observe that some cities are a victim of their own success. In comparison to the places I've lived and worked, Seattle and to a lesser extent San Francisco does not have a blighted area of the city. Are there lower SES areas and places you wouldn't want to find yourself after dark? Absolutely. But Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill just do not compare to Englewood and North Lawndale in Chicago, or Cleveland's Central or Mount Pleasant and it's a joke to even suggest as such. Though awful, and crime ridden, these blighted areas also provide a place to go, where people can live for not a lot of money.


Point #2 is exactly why there's a problem. Too many homeowners worried about property value, and yet if zoning laws loosened your property would be worth more. Multifamily zoned land will always have increased value to developers, who also have more money to buy property than individuals. there's pretty much a price cap between 400k-500k that's the absolute max that any significant amount of people can afford. Except in ultra wealthy neighborhoods, people have trouble selling for more than that without denser zoning and a property developer interested in buying.

The property value thing is a myth, especially when the majority of homes have already reached that price ceiling.
 
luckyone
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm

Jouhou wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Ah thank god, now a real conversation about something important is under way. The situation is a perfect political storm that screws the everyday citizen - on the right, developers complain about regulations but they actually quite like the slow-release projects in CA because the selling prices send their profits through the roof. You'll also never get the real estate industry to agree with a restriction on foreign buyers - especially since many Chinese and Russians literally pay cash for multimillion dollar properties. On the left, people who sound like SJWs on the streets and in offices are the ones voting for these zoning restrictions, fearful that a big change in the market will impact their own net worth. They are charlatan hypocrites who don't actually give a damn about the market situation, because they already got theirs. If they put their money where their mouth is, they'd be voting differently - there would be smarter development on major streets, and a lot more multiunit housing.

Also adding to the issue is cities are stuck in the middle - saddled with pension obligations voted in 30 years ago, they need any and all new sources of property tax revenue - so they approve apartment development on major streets in Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas, without the required transportation improvements that would require federal/state monies. Traffic gets worse, people get pissed off at the approvals, and NIMBYism naturally grows even more.

A couple thoughts:


1. Could we all agree then on the following changes to property tax regulations?
Permit the wealthy foreign investors to purchase their properties. But tax the living daylights out of the sale and property. Sorry, you don't live here, so your tax rate is going to be several times higher in an effort to mitigate the market distortion, unless:
a. The home is their primary residence (sorry your college student kids don't count), implying thus...
b. They are a US citizen or resident alien

2. With regards to loosening zoning laws, that comes with its own concerns. Let's say I just mortgaged a property in Pacific Heights, which means it isn't cheap. I now have a 30 year obligation, unless I get lucky, even then, I am invested to the tune of over one million dollars. Now you're telling me it's time to build high rises that are a) have the potential in and of themselves to lower my property value by increased supply and b) going to compound that by potentially taking away my million dollar view? As a voter I would look at that long and hard, not because I don't want the icky brown people to live near me, but because now I'm underwater on this home that I bought in good faith and now I'm in a terrible financial spot. Rapid relaxation of zoning laws has the potential to destabilize a housing market, and that's the unfortunate Catch-22 of the situation. Would it have been great if 30 years ago if zoning laws were changed? Of course, but it's also not fair to those who will be ruined for following the rules that have existed. AND THEN, who are you going to tax to pay for all these great social programs...

3. It has never been cheap to live in San Francisco--in 1950 it was twice as expensive as the national average to live in San Francisco. It's currently a little bit more than double, so while it has increased, let's not get lost in the hyperbole. This conversation has been had for over a hundred years. There are plenty of areas I can't afford to live. It's callous, and I don't really care, but if you can't afford to live somewhere...go somewhere that you can. At some point, literally any point, most people still have to be responsible for themselves and while we can acknowledge struggles, we CANNOT absolve every single person in hard times of this responsibility. No one is arguing that expensive real estate markets squeeze people out. But let's be real, if you're priced out of a rental market because your job skills only qualify you to ask for fries (I'm not saying that's not hard, honest work, but part of being an adult is acknowledging cold hard reality), then you need to be asking that question in Cleveland, Indy, or Milwaukee, where you can rent a small apartment for not a lot of money. These ladies clearly don't have any social supports in Oakland, otherwise they wouldn't be squatting. They would be at least crashing on someone's floor. If they're that disconnected from social resources, maybe having a stable home in another town will be better for them. I'll happily support a tax payer funded initiative to help people search for the jobs they need, and get people to a place they can afford to live. It's cheaper than the ER visits or extra law enforcement action that inevitably ensues when these folks are left out on the streets.

4. A discussion needs to be had about how it isn't just "liberal" policies on the West Coast influencing homelessness. It's also the weather. Whether it's by choice due to substance (sorry, it's 2020 and we all grew up with DARE and "Just Say No," A&E's "Intervention," and all that nonsense--at it's core it was still a choice to start using) use or severe mental illness, people can survive outside in all of the West Coast cities because it doesn't get life threateningly cold. Would they rather have shelter? Of course. Should we provide for those who literally do not have the ability to take care of themselves? Absolutely. Do many of them, given the choice, prefer to stay away from what shelter resources there are? Absolutely, and out west and down south they can (just ask Austin, Dallas, and Phoenix). The coldest of the bunch, Seattle, rarely gets below the 20s. While that is lose-your-mind cold for someone from the area, that is not dangerous to the homeless population. Is it pleasant? No. But people are not going to freeze to the sidewalks they way they would in the legitimately severe cold of the Midwest and Northeast. And the cities have never been forced to plan accordingly. New York has several times the homeless population of Seattle, but it also has twenty times the shelter beds. Different numbers but same story in Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, I could go on. These cities also have notorious "police brutality" cases.

5. We also need to observe that some cities are a victim of their own success. In comparison to the places I've lived and worked, Seattle and to a lesser extent San Francisco does not have a blighted area of the city. Are there lower SES areas and places you wouldn't want to find yourself after dark? Absolutely. But Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill just do not compare to Englewood and North Lawndale in Chicago, or Cleveland's Central or Mount Pleasant and it's a joke to even suggest as such. Though awful, and crime ridden, these blighted areas also provide a place to go, where people can live for not a lot of money.


Point #2 is exactly why there's a problem. Too many homeowners worried about property value, and yet if zoning laws loosened your property would be worth more. Multifamily zoned land will always have increased value to developers, who also have more money to buy property than individuals. there's pretty much a price cap between 400k-500k that's the absolute max that any significant amount of people can afford. Except in ultra wealthy neighborhoods, people have trouble selling for more than that without denser zoning and a property developer interested in buying.

The property value thing is a myth, especially when the majority of homes have already reached that price ceiling.

There is no guarantee that my lot will be sold to a developer. And unless a developer can buy several lots at once (no guarantee that three of my neighbors are going to sell at the same time either), a standard lot can only take 2-3 structures, and they certainly won't be high rise. That isn't going to get you to an "Affordable" level...$400k is not affordable to the average family.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:02 am

NIKV69 wrote:

I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective ...


You do not have the capacity to be insulting. No need to worry.

If you hate this place so much, and think the humorously ridiculous things you do, you should stop coming here. Maybe you will like Florida better.

NIKV69 wrote:
but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.


Indeed, that would be easier than asking all the people coming to CA, since it would take -a lot- less time...



NIKV69 wrote:

It's more of a second Europe it doesn't reflect the USA as a whole which is why people are leaving the state.


Europe is an incredibly diverse place. It would not be possible to compare any US State, even exceptionally well developed ones...


Aaron747 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective well we all have our opinions but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/0 ... alifornia/


There are a lot of people leaving the state, but they are largely either under-educated or conservatives, according to available data. Lots of articles around featuring right-leaning folks who have opted to leave, particularly retirees. But don't let a good story get in the way of facts, because large numbers of people are still arriving as well:


This is an important distinction. Growing up here is one thing. But for someone to move to CA, there is no substitute for bringing the A-Game. It is not worth it otherwise. For those who lack the education and ability to thrive, it can be an intimidating place. I fully understand how the more basic elements may find life is easier in some mediocre state.

But I also think this is a big part of what makes here appealing for others. It isn't easy. But most worthwhile things are not. . .
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
CaptHadley
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:22 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective ...


You do not have the capacity to be insulting. No need to worry.

If you hate this place so much, and think the humorously ridiculous things you do, you should stop coming here. Maybe you will like Florida better.

NIKV69 wrote:
but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.


Indeed, that would be easier than asking all the people coming to CA, since it would take -a lot- less time...




NIKV69 wrote:

It's more of a second Europe it doesn't reflect the USA as a whole which is why people are leaving the state.


Europe is an incredibly diverse place. It would not be possible to compare any US State, even exceptionally well developed ones...






Aaron747 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective well we all have our opinions but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/0 ... alifornia/


There are a lot of people leaving the state, but they are largely either under-educated or conservatives, according to available data. Lots of articles around featuring right-leaning folks who have opted to leave, particularly retirees. But don't let a good story get in the way of facts, because large numbers of people are still arriving as well:


This is an important distinction. Growing up here is one thing. But for someone to move to CA, there is no substitute for bringing the A-Game. It is not worth it otherwise. For those who lack the education and ability to thrive, it can be an intimidating place. I fully understand how the more basic elements may find life is easier in some mediocre state.

But I also think this is a big part of what makes here appealing for others. It isn't easy. But most worthwhile things are not. . .


LOL, Damn NikV! I've been coming to this site for years. Son, you just got your ass handed to you. Don't reply, seriously don't, it's not worth further humiliation. Stick to the "They're taking our guns from us!" threads.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:19 am

CaptHadley wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

I am in CA regularly and if you are insulted by the adjective ...


You do not have the capacity to be insulting. No need to worry.

If you hate this place so much, and think the humorously ridiculous things you do, you should stop coming here. Maybe you will like Florida better.

NIKV69 wrote:
but maybe you can ask all the people leaving the state.


Indeed, that would be easier than asking all the people coming to CA, since it would take -a lot- less time...




NIKV69 wrote:

It's more of a second Europe it doesn't reflect the USA as a whole which is why people are leaving the state.


Europe is an incredibly diverse place. It would not be possible to compare any US State, even exceptionally well developed ones...






Aaron747 wrote:

There are a lot of people leaving the state, but they are largely either under-educated or conservatives, according to available data. Lots of articles around featuring right-leaning folks who have opted to leave, particularly retirees. But don't let a good story get in the way of facts, because large numbers of people are still arriving as well:


This is an important distinction. Growing up here is one thing. But for someone to move to CA, there is no substitute for bringing the A-Game. It is not worth it otherwise. For those who lack the education and ability to thrive, it can be an intimidating place. I fully understand how the more basic elements may find life is easier in some mediocre state.

But I also think this is a big part of what makes here appealing for others. It isn't easy. But most worthwhile things are not. . .


LOL, Damn NikV! I've been coming to this site for years. Son, you just got your ass handed to you. Don't reply, seriously don't, it's not worth further humiliation. Stick to the "They're taking our guns from us!" threads.


Serious burn lol. I got him good as well with a ‘Mr. 9/11’ retort a couple weeks ago but nobody reads page 4 or 5 of a bitchfest thread :hyper:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:16 pm

Airstud wrote:
A group of women squatting illegally in a temporarily vacant $500,000 house received an unwelcome court order to leave the property. The company that owns the house, finding itself under zero legal obligation to do anything for the women, offered to assist them in finding suitable housing, including offering them two months' FREE FREAKING RENT in the process.

Their response, on Twitter, was that the company was "disingenuous" in "pretending to care about Black families."

This is the kind of hyper-entitled bullshit that generates votes for Trump. :banghead:


You win this morning’s prize for finding a way to work Trump into the subject matter. Congratulations.
A big heart is commendable. An enlarged heart is a medical condition.
 
slider
Posts: 7481
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:00 pm

That's OK. This is nothing if Gavin Newsom has his way....

"California should pass a constitutional amendment requiring all cities and counties to provide enough housing or shelter to put every homeless person under a roof, a task force appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday in its long-awaited report.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, co-chair of the 13-member task force appointed in February, said it concluded that leaving the problem to the whims of local governments hasn’t been working. California’s homeless population of 156,000 — up 16% in the past year — is the biggest in the United States and shows no sign of declining.
“We are calling for a legally enforceable mandate requiring governments to bring people home,” Steinberg told The Chronicle. “No more of this being an option. It’s past time to do what is fair, compassionate and necessary to save lives.”


It's like Britain's 16th Century poor laws, which continued on for hundreds of years. Curiously, this is also where the root of the term "the poorhouse" came from.

Watching CA these days is like watching an addict kill themselves in front of your very eyes.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:02 pm

slider wrote:
That's OK. This is nothing if Gavin Newsom has his way....

"California should pass a constitutional amendment requiring all cities and counties to provide enough housing or shelter to put every homeless person under a roof, a task force appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday in its long-awaited report.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, co-chair of the 13-member task force appointed in February, said it concluded that leaving the problem to the whims of local governments hasn’t been working. California’s homeless population of 156,000 — up 16% in the past year — is the biggest in the United States and shows no sign of declining.
“We are calling for a legally enforceable mandate requiring governments to bring people home,” Steinberg told The Chronicle. “No more of this being an option. It’s past time to do what is fair, compassionate and necessary to save lives.”


It's like Britain's 16th Century poor laws, which continued on for hundreds of years. Curiously, this is also where the root of the term "the poorhouse" came from.

Watching CA these days is like watching an addict kill themselves in front of your very eyes.


This law will encourage more homelessness. This is why NOTHING these governments do work, because they don't go to the root cause of this, which is LESS government intervention.
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:05 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
slider wrote:
That's OK. This is nothing if Gavin Newsom has his way....

"California should pass a constitutional amendment requiring all cities and counties to provide enough housing or shelter to put every homeless person under a roof, a task force appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday in its long-awaited report.

Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, co-chair of the 13-member task force appointed in February, said it concluded that leaving the problem to the whims of local governments hasn’t been working. California’s homeless population of 156,000 — up 16% in the past year — is the biggest in the United States and shows no sign of declining.
“We are calling for a legally enforceable mandate requiring governments to bring people home,” Steinberg told The Chronicle. “No more of this being an option. It’s past time to do what is fair, compassionate and necessary to save lives.”


It's like Britain's 16th Century poor laws, which continued on for hundreds of years. Curiously, this is also where the root of the term "the poorhouse" came from.

Watching CA these days is like watching an addict kill themselves in front of your very eyes.


This law will encourage more homelessness. This is why NOTHING these governments do work, because they don't go to the root cause of this, which is LESS government intervention.


OK Will Robinson Boy Wonder, give us your 5-point plan to address homelessness. Go.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:10 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
slider wrote:
That's OK. This is nothing if Gavin Newsom has his way....



It's like Britain's 16th Century poor laws, which continued on for hundreds of years. Curiously, this is also where the root of the term "the poorhouse" came from.

Watching CA these days is like watching an addict kill themselves in front of your very eyes.


This law will encourage more homelessness. This is why NOTHING these governments do work, because they don't go to the root cause of this, which is LESS government intervention.


OK Will Robinson Boy Wonder, give us your 5-point plan to address homelessness. Go.


I would start with removing 'price ceilings'.. that's a start. Perhaps more developers would begin building if the government isn't mandating on them what to charge.
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:14 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

This law will encourage more homelessness. This is why NOTHING these governments do work, because they don't go to the root cause of this, which is LESS government intervention.


OK Will Robinson Boy Wonder, give us your 5-point plan to address homelessness. Go.


I would start with removing 'price ceilings'.. that's a start. Perhaps more developers would begin building if the government isn't mandating on them what to charge.


The state of CA cannot mandate what to charge for a parcel of land...next falsehood. Go.

There are numerous posts in this thread with examples of why developers aren't building, and some of them ARE problems with liberal policies, but not the one you just named. Watching all these fantasies come to fore is fascinating.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Oakland squatters call offer of two months' free rent "an insult."

Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:25 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

OK Will Robinson Boy Wonder, give us your 5-point plan to address homelessness. Go.


I would start with removing 'price ceilings'.. that's a start. Perhaps more developers would begin building if the government isn't mandating on them what to charge.


The state of CA cannot mandate what to charge for a parcel of land...next falsehood. Go.

There are numerous posts in this thread with examples of why developers aren't building, and some of them ARE problems with liberal policies, but not the one you just named. Watching all these fantasies come to fore is fascinating.


So this is false:

Several cities in Los Angeles County have rent control regulations on the books, and the local rules do more than keep down monthly payments for tenants. They also provide protections from eviction and cash payments in the event a renter is forced to move out of their apartment


https://la.curbed.com/2018/6/4/17302800 ... ules-guide

Rent control is enacted at the city level as local law, or ordinance. This means rent control laws actually vary from city to city. Some rent ordinances address rent control only; others address rent control and provide for some form of just cause eviction; still, others protect against rent increases, evictions without cause, and tenant harassment. San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley are four of approximately fifteen California cities with some form of rent control. Find below a general summary of the ordinances enacted in several Bay Area cities.


https://www.tenantlawgroupsf.com/blog/2 ... control-a/


Your governor just recently signed state-wide project for rent caps: https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... ons-signed


so all of it is also false?
“In my experience eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” Tyrion Lannister

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jouhou, vthebee and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos