7 ms·

The battle to save Silicon Valley's oldest trailer park

23 points by japhyr 11y ago

japhyr 11y ago
I shared this because the issue is affecting my area as well as SV, and I'm sure many other areas as well. I live in southeast Alaska, and our housing costs are some of the highest in the country as well. Here it's a mix of factors; we live right on the edge of the mountains, next to the ocean, so there's a shortage of land that's suitable for building. The problem is exacerbated by well-off people buying up large homes that sit vacant in the winter and developing lodges that are only used by tourists during the summer. Just a few days ago there was a heated conversation on our community's facebook "chatters" group about how online shopping is hurting our community. Another local business is closing up shop, and people were encouraging others to shop locally whenever possible. "Encouraging" is a kind word; many were chastising anyone who talked about shopping through amazon. One person commented that he had grown up here, and lives on his fishing boat because he can't afford to buy a home. He says he buys as much as he can through amazon because it's the only way he can make ends meet. This is a guy who catches the "wild caught Alaska salmon" that many people ask for in nicer restaurants, or buy in fish markets like Pike Place in Seattle. Our community is responding in some interesting ways, like helping people figure out how to build small homes that are easier to heat efficiently in the winter. We're looking at more efficient ways to use the land that's available for building. But all of this might be for nothing in the face of economic disparity; I wonder if we'll continue to sort things out, or if it will take a large-scale economic collapse to force the issue. I hope for the former, but I won't be surprised by the latter.
fwn 11y ago
It sounds counter intuitive, but preventing the owners from reusing their property increases uncertainty for anyone investing in existing low income communities. While probably good for those few in the short run it could end up making the low income housing problem worse.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  Why are people entitled to low income housing in one of the most expensive areas to live in in the world.
  - fwn 11y ago
    This regulatory problem exists regardless of which position you choose in this question. It could even be a bad idea if you want low income inhabitants to stay in a specific area.
  - panglott 11y ago
    People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street? The bigger problem is that California has so little supply of housing relative to demand that prices are just astronomical.
    - CyberDildonics 11y ago
      > People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street? I think it's obvious that there are serious problems with supply and demand but to say a person's options are 'live in one of the most expensive areas in the world' or 'live on the street' is more than a little ridiculous. There is pretty clearly the option of not living in an expensive place. Yes it might make a commute to the same job crazy, yes it's far from ideal, yes it's not necessary when looking at the system as a whole, but this idea that people are entitled to stay wherever they are just doesn't work out. If someone was living in a hollywood mansion and couldn't afford it, people would say 'move somewhere cheaper'.
      - panglott 11y ago
        People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness. Homelessness is something that the people in that article actually express worry about. The problem is not that people are entitled to housing that they can't afford. The problem is that humans need decent housing, and the housing price situation where they live is created by policy choices. Housing policy has generated this high-price dynamic that is leading to the removal of poor, low-income, and other vulnerable people, after changing the rules on them about where they can live. Now, it's true that a trailer park is never going to be consistent with any policy that can effectively bring the supply/demand curve into line enough to supply decent and affordable housing.
richard_mcp 11y ago
How high do living expenses have to be before a place has trouble hiring low-income or blue collar employees? Or will there always be those who are willing to put in the travel time to fill them?
- Kinnard 11y ago
  There's a good chance of a large percent of low-income and blue collar employees being replaced by machines. The issue is that we still use money as an allocative technology, which means we have a system where people have to work in order to live. This doesn't make sense any more and people don't actually have to work to live.
  - eliben 11y ago
    It's going to take quite a while before the restaurant waiters and dish washers, house cleaners, plumbers and gardeners of the valley will be replaced by machines though.
    - rdl 11y ago
      Very long time for all of them, yes, but marginal employees can be reduced through automation fairly quickly. Go from 3 people to 2 at a restaurant by using more pre-cooked food or automation, buy a better PoS/order management system to remove one waiter from front of house, etc. You don't even need to fire anyone -- just hire more slowly than otherwise when things are growing, and potentially not replace people when they leave (although that's less scheduled).
    - Kinnard 11y ago
      Quite a while like a decade or two? That's not that long for the end of labor, a 10,000+ year human institution.
- ng12 11y ago
  I have a feeling Palo Alto's going to find the answer to this very soon. The entire peninsula is unaffordable for low-income workers. Crossing the Dumbarton bridge is a ~30m commute in itself and costs $5/day. Downtown Palo Alto just instituted parking restrictions on the surrounding neighborhoods so low income commuters no longer even have a place to park.
droithomme 11y ago
If I owned a tiny old trailer park and could sell it for $55 million, I would definitely do so. If this is so important to the culture of the city, let the city buy it for that price and maintain it as a living museum like Colonial Williamsburg dedicated to educating the public of the history and culture of trailer park lifestyle.
- pkaye 11y ago
  If you read the article, you would see that the city/county is offering to buy the trailer park for $39 million.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    Why should they get a discount?
    - ghshephard 11y ago
      No risk of litigation.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        So, paying $16MM in "protection money" to the city is the answer, then?
    - pkaye 11y ago
      They haven't done negotiating yet...
huac 11y ago
“I don’t know what to tell you. I live down in San Jose. I mean, I can’t even afford Palo Alto.” - the trailer park owner
Kinnard 11y ago
They should build a large multi-unit apartment building mostly for tech workers and set aside a number of units for the people who live in the trailer park now. That seems like the move to me.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eitally 11y ago
  I'm not sure why you were downvoted -- I had exactly the same thought.
- kec 11y ago
  So where do the current residents live for the year or two it takes you to build your new apartment building? How do you expect residents to be able to afford their rent doubling or tripling in the new building once it's built?
  - Kinnard 11y ago
    If the plot is being sold for $50 Million and Real Estate Developers are getting involved there's more than enough cash on the table to put several families up for a year or two especially if they're paying part of the rent.
    - kec 11y ago
      So what happens after "a year or two"? Do you expect the new owners to agree to rent control in the new building for the families which used to live in the trailer park?
      - Kinnard 11y ago
        Yes, this is a large multiunit multistory multimillion dollar housing development for techworkers. They can handle having a few units for a few families, and they can build/budget with that in mind.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kqr2 11y ago
This legal battle has been going on for years. In that amount of time they could have built more affordable housing as a backup plan however Palo Alto has been stubborn about that. They portray this as a fight between a greedy landlord and low income residents but it's really caused by Palo Alto's stagnant zoning and land use policies.

23 points by japhyr 11y ago

I shared this because the issue is affecting my area as well as SV, and I'm sure many other areas as well. I live in southeast Alaska, and our housing costs are some of the highest in the country as well. Here it's a mix of factors; we live right on the edge of the mountains, next to the ocean, so there's a shortage of land that's suitable for building. The problem is exacerbated by well-off people buying up large homes that sit vacant in the winter and developing lodges that are only used by tourists during the summer. Just a few days ago there was a heated conversation on our community's facebook "chatters" group about how online shopping is hurting our community. Another local business is closing up shop, and people were encouraging others to shop locally whenever possible. "Encouraging" is a kind word; many were chastising anyone who talked about shopping through amazon. One person commented that he had grown up here, and lives on his fishing boat because he can't afford to buy a home. He says he buys as much as he can through amazon because it's the only way he can make ends meet. This is a guy who catches the "wild caught Alaska salmon" that many people ask for in nicer restaurants, or buy in fish markets like Pike Place in Seattle. Our community is responding in some interesting ways, like helping people figure out how to build small homes that are easier to heat efficiently in the winter. We're looking at more efficient ways to use the land that's available for building. But all of this might be for nothing in the face of economic disparity; I wonder if we'll continue to sort things out, or if it will take a large-scale economic collapse to force the issue. I hope for the former, but I won't be surprised by the latter.

fwn 11y ago

It sounds counter intuitive, but preventing the owners from reusing their property increases uncertainty for anyone investing in existing low income communities. While probably good for those few in the short run it could end up making the low income housing problem worse.

CyberDildonics 11y ago
Why are people entitled to low income housing in one of the most expensive areas to live in in the world.
- fwn 11y ago
  This regulatory problem exists regardless of which position you choose in this question. It could even be a bad idea if you want low income inhabitants to stay in a specific area.
- panglott 11y ago
  People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street? The bigger problem is that California has so little supply of housing relative to demand that prices are just astronomical.
  - CyberDildonics 11y ago
    > People need to live in houses. You think all these people should just be living on the street? I think it's obvious that there are serious problems with supply and demand but to say a person's options are 'live in one of the most expensive areas in the world' or 'live on the street' is more than a little ridiculous. There is pretty clearly the option of not living in an expensive place. Yes it might make a commute to the same job crazy, yes it's far from ideal, yes it's not necessary when looking at the system as a whole, but this idea that people are entitled to stay wherever they are just doesn't work out. If someone was living in a hollywood mansion and couldn't afford it, people would say 'move somewhere cheaper'.
    - panglott 11y ago
      People who live in trailer parks are vulnerable to homelessness. Homelessness is something that the people in that article actually express worry about. The problem is not that people are entitled to housing that they can't afford. The problem is that humans need decent housing, and the housing price situation where they live is created by policy choices. Housing policy has generated this high-price dynamic that is leading to the removal of poor, low-income, and other vulnerable people, after changing the rules on them about where they can live. Now, it's true that a trailer park is never going to be consistent with any policy that can effectively bring the supply/demand curve into line enough to supply decent and affordable housing.

richard_mcp 11y ago

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

Kinnard 11y ago
There's a good chance of a large percent of low-income and blue collar employees being replaced by machines. The issue is that we still use money as an allocative technology, which means we have a system where people have to work in order to live. This doesn't make sense any more and people don't actually have to work to live.
- eliben 11y ago
  It's going to take quite a while before the restaurant waiters and dish washers, house cleaners, plumbers and gardeners of the valley will be replaced by machines though.
  - rdl 11y ago
    Very long time for all of them, yes, but marginal employees can be reduced through automation fairly quickly. Go from 3 people to 2 at a restaurant by using more pre-cooked food or automation, buy a better PoS/order management system to remove one waiter from front of house, etc. You don't even need to fire anyone -- just hire more slowly than otherwise when things are growing, and potentially not replace people when they leave (although that's less scheduled).
  - Kinnard 11y ago
    Quite a while like a decade or two? That's not that long for the end of labor, a 10,000+ year human institution.
ng12 11y ago
I have a feeling Palo Alto's going to find the answer to this very soon. The entire peninsula is unaffordable for low-income workers. Crossing the Dumbarton bridge is a ~30m commute in itself and costs $5/day. Downtown Palo Alto just instituted parking restrictions on the surrounding neighborhoods so low income commuters no longer even have a place to park.

droithomme 11y ago

If I owned a tiny old trailer park and could sell it for $55 million, I would definitely do so. If this is so important to the culture of the city, let the city buy it for that price and maintain it as a living museum like Colonial Williamsburg dedicated to educating the public of the history and culture of trailer park lifestyle.

pkaye 11y ago
If you read the article, you would see that the city/county is offering to buy the trailer park for $39 million.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  Why should they get a discount?
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    No risk of litigation.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      So, paying $16MM in "protection money" to the city is the answer, then?
  - pkaye 11y ago
    They haven't done negotiating yet...

huac 11y ago

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

Kinnard 11y ago

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

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
eitally 11y ago
I'm not sure why you were downvoted -- I had exactly the same thought.
kec 11y ago
So where do the current residents live for the year or two it takes you to build your new apartment building? How do you expect residents to be able to afford their rent doubling or tripling in the new building once it's built?
- Kinnard 11y ago
  If the plot is being sold for $50 Million and Real Estate Developers are getting involved there's more than enough cash on the table to put several families up for a year or two especially if they're paying part of the rent.
  - kec 11y ago
    So what happens after "a year or two"? Do you expect the new owners to agree to rent control in the new building for the families which used to live in the trailer park?
    - Kinnard 11y ago
      Yes, this is a large multiunit multistory multimillion dollar housing development for techworkers. They can handle having a few units for a few families, and they can build/budget with that in mind.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kqr2 11y ago

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