Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday February 12 2016, @08:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-say-gentrification? dept.

It's hard out there for a Portlander:

With no laws mandating caps on yearly rent increases in Oregon, which for three years has been US's top moving destination, homelessness is increasing.

A city of bridges, Portland is full of places where people who are homeless can find dry, covered shelter from the Pacific North-west downpour. But lately, Portland is facing a housing crisis of a different sort as shelter for the homeless has become anything but discreet. New communities of vinyl pop tents and makeshift camps have been popping up everywhere, with many spilling out into city parks.

As a quick fix to address the prevalence of homelessness, Mayor Charlie Hales announced a plan this week to manage "camping" throughout the city for safe sleeping. Homeless will now be allowed to sleep overnight on sidewalks, with a sleeping bag and a tarp, while tents will be acceptable in certain areas from 9pm to 7am. Up to 10 city-sanctioned campsites with a couple hundred disaster-relief pods will be established through nonprofit service providers. Cars and RVs for homeless to camp in will be permitted in designated areas, such as church parking lots, and at least three or four spaces for more temporary shelter are being located. Though largely experimental, the plan has been given a six month trial run. But as a strategy, it's markedly different from other west coast cities, who have been adopting a strategy of clearing out visible homeless camps in recent years.

[...] Portland saw rents appreciate nearly 15% in 2015 – the highest increase in the nation – with an average rent of $1,689 per month, according to real estate company Zillow. Five years ago, it was around $980. And rents are only trending upwards. Zillow is forecasting that Portland will be among the nation's top six rental appreciations. Apart from Denver and Buffalo, the other cities are all on the west coast: San Francisco, Seattle, and San Jose. The forces driving Portland's rents are far from few. The city has a less than 3% vacancy rate. Meanwhile, the Portland Housing Bureau said 85% of all rental units currently being built are luxury.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Google Pledges to Build 15,000+ Homes in San Francisco 13 comments

Google announces $1B, 10-year plan to add thousands of homes to Bay Area

The housing crisis in the Bay Area, particularly in San Francisco, is a complex and controversial topic with no one-size-fits-all solution — but a check for a billion dollars is about as close as you're going to get, and Google has just announced it's writing one. In a blog post, CEO Sundar Pichai explained that in order to "build a more helpful Google," the company would be making this major investment in what it believes is the most important social issue in the area: housing.

San Francisco is famously among the most expensive places in the world to live now, and many residents of the city, or perhaps I should say former residents, have expressed a deep and bitter hatred for the tech industry they believe converted the area to a playground for the rich while leaving the poor and disadvantaged to fend for themselves.

Google itself has been the subject of many a protest, and no doubt it is aware that its reputation as a friendly and progressive company is in danger from this and numerous other issues, from AI ethics to advertising policies. To remedy this, and perhaps even partly as an act of conscience, Google has embarked on a billion-dollar charm offensive that will add thousands of new homes to the Bay Area over the next ten years.

$750 million of that comes in the form of repurposing its own commercial real estate for residential purposes. This will allow for 15,000 new homes "at all income levels," and while Pichai said that they hope this will help address the "chronic shortage of affordable housing options," the blog post did not specify how many of these new homes would actually be affordable, and where they might be.

Another $250 million will be invested to "provide incentives to enable developers to build at least 5,000 affordable housing units across the market".

They should build an arcology or giant pod hotel.

Also at NPR.

Previously: "It's a Perfect Storm": Homeless Spike in Rural California Linked to Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley Charter Buses Vandalized by Pellet/BB Guns or Rocks

Related: Soaring Rents in Portland, Oregon Cause Homelessness Crisis
City of San Francisco Says It's Illegal to Live in a Box
San Francisco Restaurants Can't Afford Waiters, so they Put Diners to Work
In San Francisco, Making a Living from Your Billionaire Neighbor's Trash
A Rogue Coder Turned a Parking Spot Into a Coworking Space


Original Submission

Apple Pledges $2.5 Billion to Help Address California's Affordable Housing Crisis 31 comments

Apple wants affordable housing in California—but laws stand in the way

Apple has pledged $2.5 billion to help address California's affordable-housing crisis, the company announced on Monday. In recent years, the San Francisco Bay Area has become the most expensive housing market in America. Los Angeles also suffers from housing costs far above the national average.

Apple's $2.5 billion package includes several different initiatives. Apple will offer a $1 billion line of credit to organizations building housing for low-income people.

[...] Apple's commitment follows on the heels of similar announcements by other technology giants:

  • In January, Microsoft said it would provide $500 million in grants and loans to promote affordable housing in the Seattle area and aid the homeless.
  • In June, Google announced a $1 billion initiative, including $750 million worth of Google-owned land, to support the development of at least 20,000 new housing units "at all income levels" in the San Francisco Bay Area.
  • In October, Facebook unveiled its own initiative to offer $1 billion in grants and loans to support the construction of 20,000 housing units in the region.

Apple's initiative is larger than the other programs and appears to be more focused on low-income housing.

But there are some problems that can't be immediately solved with money:

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @09:03AM

    by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:03AM (#303134)
    I could say a lot on this subject, as a local, but I'm not sure there's much of an interest on this site, although Portland does seem to garner people's attention in the US these days. So I'll just say a few things about the homeless situation, gentrification, and the housing market. Socially, the locals are angry that they are being priced out of their neighborhoods. This is standard in the process of gentrification. But despite the populist attitude of this city, there is no rent control and no provision that new development contain a certain number of 'affordable housing' units. Additionally, there is no protection against a 'no cause' eviction, and the notice is a month or so. The rifts are largely social too. What people in other cities would consider an underclass are now faced with the prospect of being physically diluted, so there is a sense that the heart of Portland may be lost.

    As far as I can tell, regarding the homeless population, there is a benevolent bent that our town has to take care of them. It's lucky that because of the boom, we're expected to have a surplus next year ~30M. So couple that with the city's activist mentality and there is now attention and momentum to address this issue on a large scale. Of course there have been battles with developers and the NIMBY crowd, but it appears like those interests are losing ground compared to other cities. There is also the observation that word will get around that Portland is THE place to go if you are homeless, because they will take care of you. Seattle has the same reputation, and believe me, word spreads fast among them. Just ask Michael David Crawford, someone I've noticed is a homeless local Soylentil. So Portland faces an inundation of homeless in proportion to the breadth of their social services and benevolent homeless encampments. This raises the issue: How can a few west coast cities be expected to tackle a national problem?

    Add to that the extraordinary heroin problem Portland has, and the attendant crime implications, and it becomes a quagmire issue.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 12 2016, @12:21PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday February 12 2016, @12:21PM (#303160) Journal

      That's the conundrum. Just about every city out there says to its homeless, “I've got mine. Fuck you!” So, the few charitable places to go get inundated with er… shall I say… socioeconomic refugees.

      So here comes my universal basic income spiel, but wait! Now all I've done is turned the USA, Europe, and Japan into Portland and the rest of the world into the other places that go, “I've got mine. Fuck you!”

      As much as it irks my every libertarian, Illuminati-hating instinct, I think the solution can only be global in the end. That doesn't have to mean some scary NWO “One World Government” with U.N. Nazis, Freemason symbols on their uniforms, marching down every street, arresting anyone who says “merry Christmas.” There has to be a better way. I have a vague vision of developed countries implementing universal basic income and completely shutting down immigration (including refugees). Yeah, I know, build a wall! However, it would be done with the promise that the developed world would send out armies not of soldiers but of engineers, agricultural experts, field scientists, construction crews, doctors, and anything else needed to build modern civilization even somewhere as war-torn as Sub-Saharan Africa (sure, there would need to be security forces to crush local warlords).

      Hold on—that sound I hear. Listen, Elves! Crap. It's the alarm clock (In Elven Lands—Tîr Im [amazon.com]). Time to stand up and do sun exercises. It's morning. It was a nice dream at least, but it'll never happen.

      Well, it's possible in Civ 4 on the easiest difficulty….

      • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @02:42PM

        by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:42PM (#303212)

        Well, you mix basic logic with extravagant fantasy, but you are on point.
        It's really not so hard.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Friday February 12 2016, @04:21PM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 12 2016, @04:21PM (#303275)

        I'm not certain that civilization is something that can be bestowed by one people who have it on another which does not. Cultural development, like economic development, lags in many places in the world. It's obvious that some places in the world are blessed with an abundance of material wealth, while others are poor. It's less obvious, and to some even offensive to suggest, that some areas are ethically "poor" and others ethically "rich". You can heap treasures and resources on a group of people, but if they don't have an ethic that respects modernity they'll squander them. Imagine if someone said the way to defeat ISIS was to inundate them with resources and advisers to build up their "civilization". They have a different vision of life than we do that is not compatible with ours. They aren't forging their own way that's equally as good as any other. They're further down the line of moral development than we are.

        And in inevitable progress is a myth as well. Civilizations can regress. Moral development can slow, stop, or even reverse course. It sometimes takes hundreds of years to recover. What they need is stability and breathing room for this to happen endogenously. Our political system and all of our institutions have struggled--and alas, sometimes actively worked against--providing even this. One can't help but be pessimistic.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 12 2016, @07:35PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:35PM (#303359)

        The problem with this idea is that sending out armies of engineers, construction crews, etc., doesn't really work either. The people you're trying to help see it as colonialism, and if the place is really dangerous (like IS-land), then you're not going to get anyone to want to go there unless they have a deathwish. You even not there'd need to be security forces to "crush local warlords", but you say that as an afterthought, when in reality you're talking about needing a full-scale ground and air invasion. Just look at ISIS/ISIL: they're a bunch of thugs with Toyota pickups and machine guns, and the US military has been completely powerless to stop them in years. Russia's having more of an effect, but at the same time they're causing a lot more civilian casualties.

        The problem, as I see it, is that you just can't force people to be liberated. They have to want it, and they have to be willing to fight for it themselves. If they sit back and let the warlords rule over them, then it becomes impossible to eliminate the warlords without also killing lots of the "civilians", many of whom are in league with the warlord, because so many people crave power and/or wealth or at least to not be starving. Just look at North Korea: a huge amount of the population is in the Army; is it because they really believe in the Dear Leader so much? Probably not, it's probably because they get the most comfortable life and better food rations that way. Then, when you invade trying to cut the head off, the whole population turns against you because people all have an us-versus-them mentality.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:35PM (#303474)

        >Just about every city out there says to its homeless, “I've got mine. Fuck you!”
        Are you saying the city managers, or the local citizens. Either way I'd disagree. Especially with the FU part which is really aggressive & dismissive.

            As a world traveller, I can say with great conviction that many homeless folks distance themselves. Either through choice or an inability to interact well with people. Sure, an unwashed bum is not as welcome as others- but that's everywhere and your regular citizen cannot be blamed or expected to give them much attention. That's why there's municipal programs, (and weather often dictates how popular they are). And actually regular citizens DO participate in relief, welcoming centers, homes for humanity, etc. These are hardly FU's.

              But yes, if a person who's temporarily down on their luck, (and looks the part), they're not going to be given high-fives in the street. Passers by know there are programs.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @01:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @01:57PM (#303182)

      Just ask Michael David Crawford, someone I've noticed is a homeless local Soylentil.

      Yeah but how many of the other homeless are so because they're serial bridge-burners who can't keep their mouths shut?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @02:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @02:30PM (#303203)

        If you do not know any better than to keep your mouth shut due to mental illness, that's different than if you should know better because you are not crazy. Thou I admit I am taking him at his word that he is actually suffering from mental illness.

        I read a lot of his writing and I have gotten the vibe that he does spin a tale whereby everyone else is somewhat responsible for his predicament. Now I can only conclude that he is in fact mentally ill because anyone else would have figured out the common cause of all his problems simply by looking in the mirror.

        I feel it's unfortunate because he seems like a genuinely nice guy, and not at all dumb. He could just be suffering from the worst mental infliction of all: intellect. I have suffered from it too somewhat; it's that realization where you just smart enough to know you are not smart enough to make it, and you won't ever be happy because of it. The less smart would look around in same circumstances as my own and think that they have already made it.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @02:34PM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @02:34PM (#303208) Homepage Journal

        There's a lot of mentally ill among the homeless.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 12 2016, @03:00PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday February 12 2016, @03:00PM (#303224) Journal

          Severe stress, and homelessness is plenty stressful, can aggravate or even cause mental illness.

          I read of an idea authorities tried in, as I recall, D.C. They had this program for scraping up housing for the homeless. But first, the homeless had to show that they weren't mentally ill. Didn't want to provide housing to people who couldn't handle it, and were only going to waste it, which sounds reasonable. Then they realized that the mental health requirement was making the program ineffective. Had vacant homes and lots of homeless people who couldn't qualify. Recognizing that being homeless can drive people crazy, they changed the rules, offering homes as part of a cure for mental illness.

          • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @03:23PM

            by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @03:23PM (#303244) Homepage Journal

            most housing facilities for the homeless are "clean and sober". I expect they work well for people who have already decided to kick their addictions. "Housing First" is provided with the notion that it's easier to kick one's addiction if one has stable housing.

            I myself am not addicted, but I'm quite severely mentally ill. You don't see much of it here at Soylent but in real life I until quite recently was quite delusional. My symptoms come and go and so are likely to return.

            My mental health clinic tells me they have six slots in this facility, and that I am #1 on their list.

            I've been homeless most of the time since spring 2012; I've been mostly out of work since 2010.

            --
            Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 12 2016, @04:18PM

              by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday February 12 2016, @04:18PM (#303272) Homepage

              There was fairly recently an article about homeless shelters in San Diego who accept homeless people as long as they agree to rehab treatment. However, they had to leave once they were successfully treated, so it was in their best interests to actually stay addicted and deliberately impede their treatment so that they could continue to stay. What kind of sense does that make?

              As an aside rant, fuck gentrification. Fuck hipsters, especially those pseudo-masculine nu-males who oil their beards and unironically sport man-buns on Justin Bieber haircuts -- I'm going to hike down to the bar tonight and fuck some up. NOT WELCOME!

              Fuck anybody who sees a home as an investment rather than a place to live. We're going through the process of selling my Grandmother's house which she bought for $75,000 in the '70's. Now it's worth $630,000. That's just fucking ridiculous. Shit like that is the reason why millennials are pissed the fuck off.

              We should do what Mexico does with their beachfront property, though we should expand it to all domestic property - allow only citizens of the nation to own property so that crooked Chinks, Russkies, and Jews can't use them for money-laundering. We should also abolish HOAs and institute strict controls on rent and property values and expand affordable housing after kicking out all the illegal cockroaches.

              Anything good that gets fucked up always gets fucked up because of greedy fucking bastards.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:55PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:55PM (#303296)

                Oh delightful Ethanol, you always go to your racism security blanket in the end. You are so precious to us :)

                A house can be both, a place to live and an investment in the future. It is not an insane concept. If you do not care to have the equity build in your home then you should be fine with just renting. I prefer to have a place I call my own, and as such am quite happy to pour extra money into the mortgage to build equity as I know at least that money will keep up with inflation (protip: if you pay more than your mortgage payment you can have it applied directly to the principal).

                I am glad that houses retain their value. Sure 630K is probably outrageous in places where there is a property tax to boot, it would be impossible for young people to secure that amount. But if your mother's house was worth 200K now, that would probably be OK with you (about 3% compounded annually for 40 years).

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:59PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:59PM (#303377)

                  Would 3% even have beat inflation?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @08:37PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @08:37PM (#303401)

                    For banks yes... for us the peasants, no.

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Dunbal on Friday February 12 2016, @02:10PM

      by Dunbal (3515) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:10PM (#303193)

      So why isn't the invisible hand of the market working? Surely if rental prices are "too high", then a lot of landlords are going to be sitting around with empty units they can't fill at that price. So either too many people are dumb enough to pay whatever anyone asks for a unit without haggling and without question (which smacks of too much easy money), or for some reason landlords are more than happy to sit on empty units for months at a time.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @02:31PM

        by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:31PM (#303205)

        Yes, because market forces are what are important for humanity.

        You have no moral imperative?

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Dunbal on Friday February 12 2016, @04:57PM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Friday February 12 2016, @04:57PM (#303298)

          Oh look, we have a SJW here. OK please nobody talk about ANYTHING at all, there are HOMELESS PEOPLE WON'T YOU THINK OF THE HOMELESS???

        • (Score: 2) by microtodd on Friday February 12 2016, @08:26PM

          by microtodd (1866) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:26PM (#303394) Homepage Journal

          Replying here because I wondered the same thing. Its not "no moral imperative". Its that, if indeed the rental properties are being rented at the higher rates, then there are people in Portland who are paying for them. Which means....there needs to be more low-cost housing constructed somewhere.

          So what is really going on in Portland?

          Is it because the population of Portland is actually too big for the infrastructure?

          Is it because indeed landlords are sitting on empty units with high rent?

          I honestly am curious. Not because I have no moral imperative, but because I seek pragmatic solutions to problems.

          • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @08:43PM

            by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:43PM (#303406)
            well todd, it seems you're interested in a solution to provide 'affordable housing.' Why not, right? But according to free market theory, there should be no restrictions on market forces. Let the economical chips fall where they may. Housing is just a 'good.'

            And It's been good so far in terms of distributing resources. Better than any other models... But are we yet at the point where we can take other things into consideration?.. Probably not. Ray Bradbury would be disappointed.
            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 12 2016, @10:08PM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday February 12 2016, @10:08PM (#303462) Journal

              I think the word you are looking for is "intangible". The character of a city, the people who have lived in it for decades, are hard to value and are definitely Somebody Else's Problem.

              The influx of wealth and demand obviously squeezes people out. Ground zero is San Francisco.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
              • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @10:21PM

                by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @10:21PM (#303466)

                I'd argue with you that ground zero is not SF. maybe in terms of tech, but not in terms of 'ideals,' and emerging mores.
                Portland (and Seattle) are now opinion leaders, but not just in terms of market speak. There is a genuine anti-establishment bent here, and maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I think the masses here are re-thinking the system. We'll see. The current embodyment is Bernie. Let's see how far it can go.

                • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 12 2016, @10:38PM

                  by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday February 12 2016, @10:38PM (#303476) Journal
                  • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @10:49PM

                    by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @10:49PM (#303483)

                    I appreciate the link. The SF protests will go nowhere IMO.
                    If I had to speculate on the tumult, I'd say there's going to be a socialist! uprising of sorts with our young, and if there is not, then the income inequality coupled with guns will probably lead to a new Civil War.

                    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday February 12 2016, @11:16PM

                      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday February 12 2016, @11:16PM (#303489) Journal

                      I think you'd have to stand by and watch the middle class nearly evaporate before we see any such effective uprising. The games of misdirection the rich play (include the media in this) are effective. The hopelessness of a few is not enough. Also, it could be a revolution rather than a civil war. After all, as that Gini coefficient climbs, a bigger group of people (proportionately) will want to mob a smaller handful of the ultra rich.

                      I think things can chug along for the next 20 years or so, but automation will prove to be a fatal blow to our way of doing things. People can't simply be re-educated into better/alternate employment, particularly when AI also threatens skilled jobs, such as doctors, lawyers, and programmers. Massive productivity increases favor people with concentrated wealth, and wealth perpetuates wealth.

                      --
                      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
                      • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @11:35PM

                        by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @11:35PM (#303493)

                        Jesus Christ! (and I say that as an expletive, not an invocation)
                        You raise pertinent issues, Tak,and there are many, as you mention. This is one reason why I like Soy.

      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @02:36PM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @02:36PM (#303210) Homepage Journal

        Computer programmers get paid a lot of money. If I had work, I could afford to pay these rents, but I wouldn't, I'd live in a van because I don't feel it is right to charge that much.

        The VC, largely in downtown Portland and the adjacent Pearl District is attracting a lot of engineers from out of town, who are displacing the locals.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday February 12 2016, @02:47PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:47PM (#303216) Homepage

        From my time I spent in the Portland area it seems to be a good example of what happens when government decides things. The regional government there created a growth ring where they decided that there won't be any services beyond a specific are to restrict growth. So there you have an artificially scarcity created by government to increase property values. The invisible hand of the market is actually functioning just as it should in such a case and is driving up prices until it finds an equilibrium with available supply.
         
        From my perspective Portland is a rather strange place filled with strange people, especially in the downtown area. That said the ranchers on the other side of the cascades out in the high desert are just as strange just in the complete opposite way.
         
        For those of you who are ducks fans, Go Beavers. For those of you who are beavers fans, Go Ducks. Fuck your "civil war" weeks.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 12 2016, @02:57PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:57PM (#303223)

          The problem with that argument is that the same thing is happening in other major cities without similar government restrictions. These cities all experienced a bigger YoY rent increase than Portland: Fort Myers, Sacramento, Sarasota, San Francisco, Charleston, Los Angeles, San Jose, Denver, Dallas, San Diego, Nashville

          And while I'd believe that liberal government-overreach types might affect San Francisco or Los Angeles, you'd have a harder time arguing the same thing about Dallas or Nashville.

          There's a reason why Jimmy McMillan's "The Rent is Too Damn High" Party is gaining a remarkable amount of traction.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday February 12 2016, @03:27PM

            by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday February 12 2016, @03:27PM (#303248)

            How do you know that these cities do not have similar plans in place to prop up values artificially? I can almost guarantee that they all do! I'm in the North East and there is tons of these in place, and you know what? I sure can understand them.

            I just moved into a new home which is pretty secluded which I like, and I want to make sure the land around me doesn't get developed. Luckily there is a somewhat rare crane species that nests in nearby marshlands so the rest of what was going to be a subsection was instead turned into a nature reserve.

            But there are plenty of interests that are vying both for and against development in every part of the country, with the government picking sides based on what is the best for either the voters, the government coffers, or the politician's wallets. Sometimes it is as simple as zoning everything for single family housing only. Other times it could be as obtuse as restricting police patrols from or to certain areas. And of course the grand-daddy of them all is the tax abatement which are a ridiculous tax on the rest of the city, and a way for developers to charge enormous amounts for the properties, because property tax is not part of your mortgage payment in these circumstances.

            I think it is a very far stretch to try to paint Portland's situation as unique. The combination of ways in which development is restricted may be unique, but nothing about the market forces behind the drive upward in the rents is in any way, shape, or form unique. Add to it the macro driver like interest rate, and you have the recipe for our times.

            • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @08:33PM

              by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:33PM (#303398)

              Thanks for your comment SC. I think you're right about the forces that are in operation in Portland. They're not anything that couldn't be predicted. In fact, they're so common as to be mundane, yet, here we go again...

          • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday February 12 2016, @05:00PM

            by Dunbal (3515) on Friday February 12 2016, @05:00PM (#303302)

            My point is the rent can't be "too damn high" if the market is willing to pay it. OR, the landlords really aren't desperate to rent out their units. In a normal world, you'd expect an oversupply of expensive units to correct downwards in price as those landlords who are more eager to get less money instead of no money agree on dropping the price. So either there is no oversupply, or there is too much demand at that price - which means you can expect the prices to rise even further.

          • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday February 12 2016, @05:19PM

            by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday February 12 2016, @05:19PM (#303315) Homepage

            I was speaking specifically to Portland, but given how most of the metropolitan areas I have lived in have similar regional management organization that seem to push things like growth boundaries it wouldn't surprise me if similar things were happening in those other cities. It may be the city, county, or regional government but there does seem to be government intervention that makes things worse.
             
            So you have the cities in California which have government form every direction getting involved combined with reasons to live there like nice weather, tech companies with good jobs, Hollywood dreams, etc. plus in a number of those areas geography that limits where you can build so no surprise that they get to experience run away housing prices. I have friends of the family and family members who live out there. One of them likes to comment that he always wanted to live in a multi million dollar home but never thought it would be the home he is in. My wife's grandmother enjoys living in a $5 million home that she actually can't afford to move out of since things in CA are so fucked up. Having frequently been to Denver (relatives) it is a very blue area in an otherwise pretty red state and they do seem to have a lot of government there. From what I hear there are a lot of people fleeing California there who are turning Denver into another California. It has nice views, a pretty moderate climate, nearby skiing, cheaper cost of living compared to CA, etc so no wonder people want to move there but why they want to turn it into CA is beyond me. I can't speak to Charleston, Dallas, or Nashville as I have never been to those cities and don't know anyone who lives there but they all would seem to have nicer weather than the northern rust belt states. For a place like Sarasota, well Florida has pretty good weather, you are close to the ocean, and there isn't a state income tax so it seems like people would want to live there. As with most things there are a number of factors that contribute but why metro areas make things worse by imposing growth boundaries to prevent sprawl and then bitch about a lack of affordable housing is beyond me.

            --
            T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
            • (Score: 2, Informative) by lcklspckl on Saturday February 13 2016, @02:05AM

              by lcklspckl (830) on Saturday February 13 2016, @02:05AM (#303521)

              I was speaking specifically to Portland, but given how most of the metropolitan areas I have lived in have similar regional management organization that seem to push things like growth boundaries it wouldn't surprise me if similar things were happening in those other cities. It may be the city, county, or regional government but there does seem to be government intervention that makes things worse.

              The regional government is Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(Oregon_regional_government) [wikipedia.org]. It is democratically elected to do just that according to state law. It was democratically created to do just that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary#United_States [wikipedia.org] by a vote of the people affected. The state laws requiring the UGB were introduced in 1973 and apply to the whole state and its cities. Even Burns and Bend and Boring! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Land_Conservation_and_Development_Act_of_1973 [wikipedia.org]. Voters have attempted to change it numerous times and have mostly changed it back after seeing what happens when development is allowed laisse faire. That last part is my mostly my opinion, but I thought some facts were in order on the nature of the government entity. It's not all oogabooga. But Kromagv0 does have some valid points nonetheless. The first paragraph of the second Wikipedia entry sums it up nicely for any side. That Tennessee had this and their reasons for doing so were new to me.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @08:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @08:22PM (#303392)

            Gov't regulation comes in many different forms:

            Around 2000 I spent some time in Toronto, Canada, and heard that any real estate development had to include some fraction of low income housing (I believe these rents were gov't subsidized, not sure of details). This policy had been in place for many years and the result was that there were no "bad" parts of town, no slums. Not sure if Toronto still does this, but it seemed like a reasonable sort of regulation at the time.

            • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday February 12 2016, @09:22PM

              by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:22PM (#303431)

              NYC has the same policy. Did you know that there are housing projects in Manhattan? CRAZY RIGHT! Of course there were still bad parts of town, and the people who get to live in these housing projects in Manhattan have to travel ridiculous amount of time just to do their grocery shopping because everything in their local supermarket is way outside their price-range (with items marked up $1-$2, which can easily double your food budget). It is not a great solution at all :/

          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday February 13 2016, @03:24AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Saturday February 13 2016, @03:24AM (#303535) Homepage

            California has artificially restricted where housing can go, but not by the obvious method of saying "You can only build here". Nope, they did it with a combination of regulations and taxes and unintended consequences.

            Frex, because overhead lines (cheap to install) are no longer allowed, all new power must be buried cable. Buried cable (very expensive to install) is taxed as real property. This has discouraged expansion of the electric grid (unless a development has the costs built into unit prices), because the cost to install it has outpaced the electric companies' ability to recoup that and make any profit at all (hey, you wanted deregulation... you got it, good and hard). The upshot is, if an area doesn't already have power -- it probably never will (at least, not until power generation at the point of use becomes broadly practical), except for fairly upscale developments, certainly not housing for working joes.

            Increasingly overextended municipal water supplies, whose long-term storage reservoirs are being emptied by "environmental" interests, similarly restrict growth since you really can't put people where you can't supply enough water for modern life. (Restrict everyone to bathing in a bucket and washing clothes once a month, and no doubt this could change.)

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Friday February 12 2016, @07:19PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:19PM (#303352)

        There are a lot of reasons why the demand for housing is outpacing the supply, not least of which is the costs and regulations associated with development [portlandoregon.gov] within the city. As mentioned in the summary, "The forces driving Portland's rents are far from few." It's possible that the state and city are unable to modify their regulations to allow the amount of growth that would be needed to keep up with the housing demand.

        It has actually been a nationwide trend in the last 7 years for rents to increase, because of more people in the renters market that previously owned homes, but were unable to keep up with mortgage payments. That includes the foreclosures, but also people that were able to sell short or or in some way divest themselves of the home and avoid the looming foreclosure.

        Creating housing is a slow process anyway. The summary mentions the growth in 2015, which may spur more development, but it will take a while to catch up to demand.

        Portland also has regulations that attempt to preserve affordable housing [portlandonline.com] where possible. How those regulations are working out is unclear. There is no explicit rent control, so maybe those regulations are actually backfiring in this environment?

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @09:46PM

          by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:46PM (#303447)

          Unfortunately I'm out of mod points, but I want to point out that I read your comments and your links are very informative.
          Cheers,

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @02:14PM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @02:14PM (#303196) Homepage Journal

      I moved here from California in 2010 in part to look after my elderly mother, in part to return to my native northwest, and in part to get involved with the extensive mobile application development here.

      I haven't been able to find a job, mom moved into a retirement community in Spokane, so I am now homeless. But I still regard the northwest as my home.

      I was living in a tent underneath I-5 next to the east end of the hawthorne bridge until saturday, when someone slashed up my tent with a knife - while I was still in it - and tried to steal my guitar. Before that I had the idea that the homeless respected each others' tents. Now I'm sleeping at the Portland Rescue Mission.

      I applied for subsidized housing through my mental health clinic in Vancouver. If I get the housing, I would pay 30% of my income in rent, which is presently nothing, however I am expecting to get a good storage driver development contract soon.

      There's lots of food to eat, with all the soup kitchens and rescue missions, but there is not enough shelter space for everyone. I've been able to sleep indoors every night just because most others choose to sleep out on the streets.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Friday February 12 2016, @03:13PM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday February 12 2016, @03:13PM (#303233)

        Well MDC I learned a lesson long time ago about false assumptions and trying to apply same set of rules to everyone in similar circumstances. Not everyone will follow the rules even if they are actual rules, not just a perception you have of some unwritten rule.

        The incident is no doubt traumatic and shakes you to the very core, but most likely vast majority of the homeless would have a respect for your tent, especially if they owned one themselves. Still even if you know on a logical level that this is correct, it cannot alter how you feel about it following what has happened to you. It pretty much explains PTSD many victims suffer.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @03:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @03:26PM (#303247)

        when someone slashed up my tent with a knife
        Sorry about your tent. People suck when they are desperate.

        Michael now I am going to spin this as a good thing for you. Change is many times painful (both physically and mentally). You needed something to move you along from the rut you have got yourself into. I mentioned this before to you but you blew me off. I specifically told you no employer is going to look at you in the condition you are in. You ignored me. You can NOT help people from the bottom. You have made your stand and you ended up where you are. *You* need to take control of the situation and seize the opportunity that has been thrust upon you in a bad way. Ladder yourself from homeless shelter to a crap apartment. YES it is going to cost more. Nice things are like that, they cost more and are NOT free. Once you do that you can probably get a real programming job. I am not messing around here. No address = no job. It is that simple. Its not 'right' but it is the way of the world. Companies are not looking for flaky. If you come off as even slightly flaky they have a stack of other people they can pick from.

        You seem like a reasonably good engineer and are *wasting* your talents. Dont waste them. You do not have much time left. What are you going to do with it. Wallow around in your own self pitty or fix it? You have made things amazing worse and harder to deal with by going the route you have. Being poor is like trying to do the indy 500 in a yugo with a 500 lb weight attached to a chain off the bumper. Our society is almost specifically designed to make it harder. There is no fixing it if you are poor. All you can do is bemoan it.

        Seize upon the opportunity you MUST take now. Stop playing around and looking for whatever it is you are looking for on the internet. Dont do it tomorrow. DO IT NOW. Please!

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday February 12 2016, @09:05AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:05AM (#303135)

    How about a radical notion. If you can't afford to live in a city with insane rents on a fast slope to even higher you might want to consider living somewhere else? Supply and demand and all that? There are lots of places you can live a lot cheaper.

    Ok, how about another crazy idea. All along the left coast space to build is at a premium because half the State is owned by the Federal Government and most of the rest is regulated by policies intended to stop 'sprawl' so what little land is available is going to go to the most profitable uses, high end luxury apartments and condos. Again, supply and demand is a law of nature people so decide what you really want when voting.

    Proggies do not want "urban sprawl" (i.e. suburbs) but they do want to push as many people as possible into the cities (because urbans vote for them) but on the other land they don't really like high rises anymore. Then they don't like the high rents these policies combine to cause and want to wish away the basic laws of economics and even physics. So they end up "allowing" people to pitch tents and then patting themselves on the back for their enlightened compassion.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @09:53AM

      by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:53AM (#303140)

      Hi jmorris,
      I wouldn't have moderated you a troll. You have a very function-oriented attitude, which I think is a valuable addition to the dialog. Many of us tech people look for a simple rule that has the breadth to be relevant as meta-substance. I'd submit to you that the missing component from your analysis is the messy business of social dynamics, and also psychological factors, which are not captured well in a free market model. And perhaps you impute an analysis to people (the market analysis) that doesn't encompass the totality of their decision making. In Portland, actually, that may be secondary.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:20AM (#303141)

      The poorest people are the most able to handle continually moving (an expensive practice in its own right) every couple of years when rents get too high.

      They also should just get used to moving further and further away from jobs and having longer commute times because...

      "Fuck you got mine!"
      That is the America you want to live in right?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Friday February 12 2016, @04:31PM

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 12 2016, @04:31PM (#303284)

        You phrased this sarcastically but I hope you're aware that many people sincerely find this attitude wholly reasonable, even virtuous given the alternatives (some form of socialism). I won't speak for gpp but I wouldn't be surprised if he's one such.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 12 2016, @08:20PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:20PM (#303389)

          I hope you're aware that many people sincerely find this attitude wholly reasonable

          Actually, judging by voting trends, it's an extremely Christian attitude.

          In my experience and observations, Christians, by and large, are completely lacking in empathy. I see this not only in national voting trends, how political parties are aligned and the policies that Christian politicians advocate, but also with Christians that I've known personally.

          • (Score: 2) by julian on Friday February 12 2016, @08:52PM

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 12 2016, @08:52PM (#303411)

            In the USA it's a fairly simple explanation. For Evangelical Christians opposition to homosexuality (especially marriage) and abortion are higher priorities than fighting poverty. This is interesting since Christ's and the early Christians' core message, other than than the theological claims, was the importance of helping the poor and the suffering. Jesus did not speak a single recorded word on either homosexuality or abortion, yet you'd think that was the central message of the Bible with how American Christians vote.

            They certainly *think* they are Christians, but they sure don't act as Christians are explicitly commanded. This is a good essay/site on the paradox. [right-wing-pseudo-christians.com]

            • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @11:26PM

              by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @11:26PM (#303491)

              Yeah, Julian, you're right, of course. .. But Convincing those Evangelicals Is a big ask... How the fuck do you propose to do that?

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday February 12 2016, @06:36PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Friday February 12 2016, @06:36PM (#303342)

        Amazing. I give a totally rational course of action for an individual, explain the forces causing the problem and point to the solution on a social scale. And get insults.

        Reread my first post. The area is growing in population and being kept from growing the housing stock sufficient to keep up. In the end some of the population must leave, tent cities not being a long term solution, or the government must relent on their urban planning policies and permit enough housing to be built that the market can service all demand at prices that will allow everyone wanting to live there to remain. There isn't a third option.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:30PM (#303283)

      How about this for another crazy idea?, Income inequality. You have more than a generation of the rich, the very, very rich controlling an increasing amount of our politics and making themselves richer, at the expensive of everyone else (did I say class warfare?). Over time, housing, particularly in high demand urban areas is no longer housing. It's investment. Who can afford this investment? the very, very rich. Housing is no longer a place for humans to live, it is a profit center. As prices soar, everyone competes to buy these profit centers and guess who wins? the very, very rich. And guess who loses? everyone else.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @05:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @05:10PM (#303309)

      If you can't afford to live in a city with insane rents on a fast slope to even higher you might want to consider living somewhere else?

      Right, right, because the job market in Bumfuck, Nebraska is an applicant's dream right now, its genuinely BOOMING!

      You don't really think any further once something has lodged itself in your thinking organ, do you?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @09:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @09:47PM (#303448)

        because the job market in Bumfuck, Nebraska is an applicant's dream right now

        On the other hand you can probably BUY a house there for 20k. Then commute to one of the 5 major cities there. I know a guy who did just that. He does pretty well. Think he is well on his way to a *very* nice retirement. I did something similar in bumfuck north carolina. I am now in a position where I can move to where ever I like. I started at 10k in the hole and now am at about 800k in assets and 0 debt.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 12 2016, @08:05PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:05PM (#303382)

      I've been wanting to move to either Portland or Seattle for a while, because I really like the climate there and because they're tech hubs. However, I've also learned that they have a terrible surplus of single males, and now that I'm single again, and after finding that Portland isn't as inexpensive as it used to be, this has made it very unlikely that I'll be moving there any time soon.

      It's really too bad: the Pacific Northwest is a really nice area; I guess everyone else decided that too and packed up and moved there. Now I'm wishing I had been less conservative and moved there back in the early 2000s when I first got the idea that I'd like it there.

      However, about your comment regarding half the state being owned by the Federal government: I don't think that's really quite true. My understanding is that it's the *eastern* side of the state that has a lot of Federal land. Eastern and western Oregon (or Washington) are completely different places, both culturally and climatically; they might as well be entirely different states. The people who move to Oregon or Seattle because they love the gray, rainy, mild weather are *not* going to be happy in the eastern sides of those states at all, which are arid and cold. Plus the local culture is entirely different; they're not going to find fancy coffee shops in those eastern towns. The people are moving to those places because they want to be in Portland and Seattle. What they need is a lot more high-rises, as you point out. That's the only way to pack more people into a given space without increasing sprawl and also increasing the supply so that prices don't skyrocket. I'm not too sure how well the local geography can handle high-rises, but they do have a lot of high-rise condos in Vancouver Canada which is the same geography and also right on the coast.

      • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @09:07PM

        by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:07PM (#303422)
        You're right about the characterization between E and W in Washington and Oregon.. It doesn't matter to the 'progressives' among us that there's a difference between 'our side' of the mountains and 'the other side,' although you'll see the East is Red and they receive more Federal dollars than they contribute, like all Red states (except Texas.--Go Ahead and secede, assholes)...

        RE: the land that that Bundy's are fighting over, etc, the Fed Govt tried to sell it to the States many years ago, but they weren't buying, so the history doesn't support the Cowboy Narrative. And they offered it cheap too... Sorry, I digress...

        Yeah the West Coast is awesome. I don't think coastal high-rises are going to happen here in upper left WA, although I don't know about legal prohibitions regarding such.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @09:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @09:22AM (#303137)

    With no laws mandating caps on yearly rent increases in Oregon

    Thank God Big Government™ isn't trying to meddle with the Free Market here. Its not like demand for superfluous things like shelter is infinite, so eventually prices will stop increasing once supply and demand reach their local equilibrium.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:36AM (#303147)

      What's more, the wealthy, overwhelmingly liberal, and privilege-checked population of that city is working hard to redistribute their wealth so the oppressed people living on the margins (with no voice) are being taken care of.

      It almost brings a tear to my eye...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @11:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @11:47PM (#303496)

        We should note that what passes for "Liberal" in the USA's Lamestream Media is considered Conservative (Right Wing, pro-Big Business, pro-police state, pro-Imperialism) anywhere else on the globe.

        Charts of the positions of presidential candidates show that the folks for whom most USAians vote (Blues and Reds) are on the anti-egalitarian / anti-civil liberties sides of those respective axes.
        2008[1], [politicalcompass.org] 2012[2], [politicalcompass.org] 2016[3] [politicalcompass.org]

        [1] Ralph Nader ran as an independent that year; his dot should be white or yellow or something.
        The dot for Libertarian Mike Gravel should be purple.
        Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney [reopen911.info] isn't shown.

        [2] The dots for Jill Stein and Stewart Alexander should be Green.
        The dot for Libertarian Gary Johnson should be purple.

        [3] Notice how close Hillary is to the I'll-do-anything-for-Wall-Street edge.
        It's also interesting how the space between the Totally-Fascist point (upper right corner) and the Republican candidates has closed in 8 years.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday February 12 2016, @02:49PM

      by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:49PM (#303219) Homepage

      Maybe the government should look into the caps on where people can build in that area.

      --
      T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @01:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @01:12PM (#303171)

    I'm a late 30's, single, reasonably well-educated guy and was thinking about moving to Seattle/Portland. At least I was until I saw the rent and house prices. I could probably find a job but I'd spend all of my income on rent and it would take me centuries to save the downpayment needed to buy a 400+k shack up there. No thanks!

    I'm moving to Denver instead, which has been seeing some of the same population swell, but thankfully it is far enough away and cold enough to keep the California influx at bay.[for now]

    • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Friday February 12 2016, @02:32PM

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Friday February 12 2016, @02:32PM (#303206)

      Yes, there are a lot of places where you don't go broke jut paying someone else to have a roof over your head AND the weather doesn't suck terribly.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 12 2016, @07:54PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:54PM (#303374) Journal

      The same exact issue is occurring in Denver. In fact, I think Denver was 3rd on that Zillow list of rent increases behind Seattle and Portland.
       
      In fact, there is a very dramatic demographic shift into the cities going on all across the US and much of the rest of the world right now.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 12 2016, @08:14PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:14PM (#303387)

      I'm in nearly the same situation: only a couple years older than you, and newly single. I've wanted to move to Portland or Seattle for probably 10-15 years now. I love the climate there, and being a cyclist I love that Portland is considered the most bike-friendly city in the nation. Being married largely prevented me moving during that time. Now that I've nearly freed myself from that situation, I'm finding two big problems: 1) the cost of living there has increased so much, and 2) from everything I've read, there's a glut of single men in both Portland and Seattle (but worse in Seattle, probably the 2nd-worst in the country next to the Bay Area). I really don't want to move someplace where I'm going to be stuck never having a date for the rest of my life, and if the cost-of-living gets ridiculous, then that basically blows the whole idea out of the water. Also, I'm a software engineer, but from what I've seen, the salaries there aren't that great.

      • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday February 12 2016, @08:50PM

        by Hawkwind (3531) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:50PM (#303409)

        most bike-friendly city in the nation

        Actually that's most bike-friendly large city in the nation. Davis, CA, is the leading edge in the U.S. First to platinum status and the national body is now working on a new status that Davis can chase.
         
        Of course it's still taking inspiration from leading European cities.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 12 2016, @02:52PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday February 12 2016, @02:52PM (#303221) Homepage Journal

    Commonly known as "The Tent Camp", R2D2 is a homeless shelter built and operated by the homeless themselves, at 4th and Burnside in Oldtown Portland. It's unique among homeless shelters in that it allows one to sleep during the day. The rule is "twelve hours in, twelve hours out". I stay there occasionally.

    The city cited them for operating an illegal campground, R2D2 sued the city - I'm not sure over what - and reached a settlement that they had to move somewhere else, but they haven't moved yet.

    The men's tent is quite large, with one side open to the air. So it's not heated, but the sleeping bags they supply are plenty warm. There is also a smaller woman's tent, and a couple's tent, and individual tents for the "members" - the homeless who staff the place.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by JeanCroix on Friday February 12 2016, @03:29PM

    by JeanCroix (573) on Friday February 12 2016, @03:29PM (#303249)
    Portland is over.

    (Reference, for the potentially butthurt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlGqN3AKOsA) [youtube.com]
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:03PM (#303349)

    I can't tell you one way or the other about Portland, but I can tell you about Eugene, a three hour drive south. We have homeless camps, but we don't have a lot of bridges, so instead the city has paid to set up tent villages by buying overpriced land and paying to have the places kept clean. Often several of the residents of these Kittyvilles have vehicles, I know of at least one new BMW.

    In our case rather than being due to rent it is because they know the city will pay for them. Then they sit on street corners and beg for money. The camps are only set up at the edge of urban sprawl in areas where the kindhearted folks at the city center that call us hicks and cruel for not wanting them here, can't see them.

    The camps are policed and our traditional homeless (mental etc) is not allowed in. It is a bunch of people who found they could live at the taxpayers expense and are okay with "camping" in semi-permanent structures (yurts, sheds, tents).

    The two plots closest to me cost the city 60k a piece for 1/4th an acre of land. Pretty sound investment. On top of this the city has to pay for porti-potties and extra police presence. Where I live my family now has to lock car, home, and shed for the first time since we moved here in '69.

    Yeah I'm mad. Mod me as such.

    "Legalize Survival! Where do you sleep at night?"
    In a house I pay for by commuting for two and a half hours a day.

    • (Score: 2) by patella.whack on Friday February 12 2016, @09:28PM

      by patella.whack (3848) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:28PM (#303436)

      AC, Eugen is only 100 miles south (1hr 45min @70mph), so I wonder if you're being truthful about the rest of your comments, but actually, from what I've seen on the street corners in my old Eugene hometown, you are being truthful. It's like go to any West Coast city, right? Sit on a strategic corner (perhaps fight over it), and grab a few dollars. Make no mistake, those bucks go to getting Fucked Up. Doesn't everyone know that? Apparently the soccer moms don't, plus a few bucks from those of us that kick down a buck or two every so often. We perpetuate the problem too

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:47PM (#303482)

        I have gone to Portland like twice in the past five years. Its a hour and a half drive from Salem to Eugene when I'm headed home at night. Isn't Salem halfway to Portland?

        Evidently I went and looked it up and I failed hard at knowledge geography check. Thanks for correcting me. I tend to view Portland as some sort of magic hellhole of overpasses and traffic, and do all I can to avoid everything about it.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 12 2016, @09:27PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:27PM (#303435) Journal

    Didn't Salt Lake City or somewhere in Utah find out that it was about 2/3 cheaper to just...imagine this...HOUSE THE HOMELESS, rather than leave the situation as-is?

    At this point you can't even make the "butbutbut that would be EXPENSIVE!!11111eleventy-one" argument any longer. And that's leaving out the "intangibles" (really the most tangible part of all of this) such as human suffering, moral cost, long-term problems for the neighborhood, etc. At this point, people opposed to the idea are simply selfish and cruel. I would go so far as to say evil, because I am a moral realist.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @10:04PM (#303459)

      It is not about saving money (which is not their money to begin with), it's about keeping the peasants in line.

      • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:09AM

        by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:09AM (#303559) Homepage

        No, it's about obeying the money.

        It's the same reason why we destroy surplus food even as the poor are starving. No money, no service. You can't just feed starving people, you know. You've got to pay for it. The economy literally depends on money changing hands.

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 13 2016, @06:15AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 13 2016, @06:15AM (#303574) Journal

          Yeah, you nailed it...and anyone with a brain knows this, and anyone with even a kernel of basic human decency is against it.

          THIS is why I call out people like JMorris and Buzzard and tell them where to go, what to do when they get there, with whom, and for how long. I don't give a single solitary lonely damn if it gets me modded Flamebait or worse: that kind of explicitly anti-social behavior needs to be called out. Neither of those two are stupid, which means they know better and refuse to do or be better. That means they are evil. I won't forgive evil, even if all I can do to most of it is expose it.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday February 13 2016, @12:09AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday February 13 2016, @12:09AM (#303503) Homepage Journal

      'Housing First' model may find home in Vancouver [columbian.com].

      I'm under the impression that's where I'm likely to get an apartment.

      Giving people free housing is cheaper than putting them in jail, dealing with medical emergencies and the like.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]