SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the need-more-land-where-the-water-is dept.
California's Central Valley is best known for supplying nearly 25% of the country's food, including 40% of the fruit and nuts consumed each year. Yet today, backcountry places such as Patterson, population 22,000, are experiencing an increase in homelessness that can be traced, in part, to an unlikely sounding source: Silicon Valley.
The million-dollar home prices about 85 miles west, in San Francisco and San Jose, have pushed aspiring homeowners to look inland. Patterson's population has doubled since the 2000 census. Average monthly rents have climbed from about $900 in 2014 to nearly $1,600 in recent months, according to the apartment database Rent Jungle, compounding the hardships of the foreclosure crisis, the shuttering of several local agricultural businesses and surging substance abuse rates.
"The rents in Patterson are crazy," said Romelia Wiley, program manager of the local not-for-profit organization Community Housing & Shelter Services. "Why? I-5."
The freeway offers commuters access to high-paying job centers near the coast, and the number of people commuting to the Bay Area from the portion of the Central Valley that includes Patterson more than doubled between 1990 and 2013, to about 65,000 people, or at least 15% of the local workforce, according to an analysis by the University of the Pacific.
Why don't they build up instead of out?
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:41PM (1 child)
Housing shortages are the result of many factors.
It's not that governments are poor at judging, it's corruption. Often, everyone knows which choice is better for the people, but a few bribes can persuade officials to make a different choice. The bribes shouldn't be too blatant. Slipping a wad of cash under the table directly to the official is risky. More like, the official's nephew gets a cushy job offer from an unrelated business whose owner happens to be a personal friend of the owners of the businesses that benefit. Then, the decision can be cynically blamed on government incompetence, or the public can be confused and fatigued by apparent complexity.
Buyer beware can go only so far. For instance, there are a ton of rules about housing construction, to protect home buyers from unprincipled builders who would take foolish shortcuts if allowed. Home buyers, and even professional home inspectors cannot see everything. Not easy to get a look at the inside of the walls, have to detach and move an outlet, or pull the nails to take a panel of the drywall off, or maybe try some kind of radar. How do you tell whether the plumbing is lead free? Without those rules, houses might routinely be built with flaws that will lead to a major plumbing or roof leak in less than 5 years, or an electrical system that will short out and start a fire within 3 years, or a gas leak that kills everyone inside. Or maybe asbestos, lead, formaldehyde, or other nasty toxins will slowly outgas for years and keep everyone inside mildly sick all the time, slowly poisoning everyone. Or the house might fall apart because they didn't do anything to protect it from termites, or the foundation may crack apart and crumble. And there are still big gaps. Like, how about the homes built in low areas prone to flooding? What if the site wasn't prone to flooding, until a new apartment complex or strip mall upstream added a bunch of pavement that dramatically increased the runoff rate? Or the city's sewer system backs up and forces sewage up through all the drains and toilets of the lowest lying houses?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 18 2017, @01:55PM
About the corruption. When each government official takes some small benefit to make a poor decision, he/she rationalizes it that what it affects isn't really important in the large scale. It only affects this building or that parking lot, or some specific project like a park.
The problem with that thinking is that it is like pollution. If I were the only one that did it, it wouldn't be a problem. But if everyone starts dumping toxic sludge into the river, there is going to be a big problem. If I was the only one throwing a bag of litter on the side of the highway, or pissing on the street, it would be a small problem easily delegated to an official with tiny hands. But if everyone did these things it would be a big problem.
Small corruption is the same thing. It's when everyone does it that the system is thoroughly corrupt through and through.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.