4 ms·

What's the advantage of having poor people living in the city? Is it advantageous to the rich, so they can get a minimum-wage cleaner who doesn't have to commu

by afafsd 12y ago

What's the advantage of having poor people living in the city? Is it advantageous to the rich, so they can get a minimum-wage cleaner who doesn't have to commute in from Oakland? Meh, I don't think it makes a big difference. Or is it advantageous to the poor, so that they too can stand in line for a $70 bottomless mimosa brunch every Sunday or buy some nice eighteen-buck cocktails? No, that's stupid, the poor would be better off in a poorer city where (a) everything is cheaper, and (b) they don't have to suffer the indignity of being constantly surrounded by people much more successful than themselves. No poor people live in Beverley Hills, and it works out just fine for them.

pjlegato 12y ago
It is psychologically advantegous for bourgeois bohemians (rich people who profess liberal or leftist political views) to find a way to magnanimously allow a few poor people to live nearby, so they can disingenuously convince themselves that they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Voting for housing subsidies is an easy moral balm with no downside; it lets them not feel like total hypocrites for living a high income lifestyle despite professing a profound sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged. Otherwise, they might have to give up their biannual $3,000 laptop upgrades and join the Peace Corps. In that regard, it should be noted that San Francisco's much lauded Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program actually accepts only a tiny fraction of the many eligible applicants, by lottery.[1] The actual impact on the poor at large, or on the social composition of the city, are both marginal. It's a lottery. Running a lottery undoubtedly helps the few winners, but it's not a strategy for helping any significant number of people; it's a strategy for making people feel good about themselves for seeming to help people. [1] For example, the recent Natoma Family Apartments had 60 units available, and 2,800 eligible applicants. If anything, this is an unusually high ratio for San Francisco BMR projects. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Affordable-housing-in-S-F-Depends-on-whom-you-5321064.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Affordable-housing-in-...

by afafsd 12y ago

pjlegato 12y ago

It is psychologically advantegous for bourgeois bohemians (rich people who profess liberal or leftist political views) to find a way to magnanimously allow a few poor people to live nearby, so they can disingenuously convince themselves that they are part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Voting for housing subsidies is an easy moral balm with no downside; it lets them not feel like total hypocrites for living a high income lifestyle despite professing a profound sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged. Otherwise, they might have to give up their biannual $3,000 laptop upgrades and join the Peace Corps. In that regard, it should be noted that San Francisco's much lauded Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program actually accepts only a tiny fraction of the many eligible applicants, by lottery.[1] The actual impact on the poor at large, or on the social composition of the city, are both marginal. It's a lottery. Running a lottery undoubtedly helps the few winners, but it's not a strategy for helping any significant number of people; it's a strategy for making people feel good about themselves for seeming to help people. [1] For example, the recent Natoma Family Apartments had 60 units available, and 2,800 eligible applicants. If anything, this is an unusually high ratio for San Francisco BMR projects. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Affordable-housing-in-S-F-Depends-on-whom-you-5321064.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Affordable-housing-in-...