I know this isn't the same as people who live there, but while in SV, I met Uber/Lyft drivers who drove in from other cities in NoCal and worked 5 days a week in the Bay Area as a driver, sleeping overnight in their cars. Only on the weekends did they drive back home to spend time with family.
One of the people listed makes $175,000 he can easily afford his own apartment at, conservatively, $3000/month, or he can have a couple roommates and pay around $1000-1400/month. He chooses not to so he can save money and use the amenities at his work. You shouldn't be allowed to live in cars on the street, people paying property taxes are paying for those streets.
Free parking is the problem here, you shouldn't be able to leave your car on the street anywhere for long periods, especially not living in it. If you do this you are taking advantage of the system supported by tax paying owners and renters.
If the cost of the car registration included the true cost of parking on city streets living in your car would likely be much less attractive for these people who can afford housing but simply choose not to.
Yes please. I would love the optics of homeless car-campers being forcibly removed from Bay Area NIMBY neighborhoods at homeowners' request. It'll make so much better television, and show so much more clearly who the villains really are, than dreary zoning commission meetings.
In the meantime, it's excellent that homeowners are suffering the consequences of their decision to prevent their neighbors from living in real housing units by waking up to RVs as blight on their neighborhoods. It's not close to proportional for the massive damage they choose to inflict on the lives of those around them, but it's a start.
What are homeowners doing to prevent other people having houses? I don't think that someone buying a house in the Bay Area automatically makes them some sort of evil person forcing others to live in vehicles.
Homeowners, particularly SFH owners in SF, tend to be very politically active in trying to block attempts at developing high density transit oriented housing. This is especially the case if there is the possibly of said housing being made available to lower income residents.
Homeownership certainly doesn't make someone evil, however, if in addition to owning a home they also attempt to make it difficult for subsequent residents to own a home, all the while taking advantage of the generous subsidies that Prop 13 provides and reaping the benefits of RE appreciation when it's time to sell, I think it's fair to call them out on it.
Well all homeowners who voted for Prop 13 effectively were voting against future homeowners, but this doesn't represent all homeowners. Some are still likely anti-density and limiting new housing but not all.
Most of the people who voted for Proposition 13 were voting against government waste, and against Grandma being forced out of her home of 30 years due to increasing property taxes.
The unintended consequences didn't become apparent until much later.
I recently moved to California and was born after all this started but I'm pretty interested in the early days. Was it honestly believed that this was the best way as a way for grandma to keep her house in days of high inflation and people didn't realize the potential consequences or was it simply sold to the masses under this guise but really it was to benefit existing landowners, creating basically a landowning aristocracy.
There just seem to be so many better ways for fixed income people to keep their homes, like a tax rebate for seniors below a certain income... Although I disagree it is strictly necessary for grandma to keep her home, retires who can't afford their taxes could reasonably be expected to downsize once kids leave home or even god forbid cohabitate with their children as is very common in the rest of the world.
I don't know if people thought Proposition 13 was the best solution but the state legislature hadn't done anything to solve the problem and no one else did the hard work necessary to get an alternative on the ballot. So voters in 1978 had to choose between Proposition 13 or nothing.
How so? Prop 13 protects home owners from eviction due to tax increases, but encourages new zoning and new development since property taxes get rebaselined to market on every sale. Also, despite the high costs, the housing market is still pretty liquid with people paying millions for a shot at home ownership, even though that comes with $15-45K in property taxes each year.
It discourages people from downsizing as empty nesters. It discourages landlords from remodeling/improving their property. It allows long time landowners to sit on underutilized properties for a long time, as they wait for prices to go up even higher, instead of nudging them to redevelop sooner.
The housing market has few properties on the market, which is part of a why prices are so high.
Pushing back against high density development comes to mind. Though I don't live in the area so I'm not sure how much that is a problem with new tech money and how much is with old locals that want to keep SF the same as it was when they moved there.
> If you do this you are taking advantage of the system supported by tax paying owners and renters.
Many people living in California, thanks to Prop 13, are also paying almost nothing to the system because they bought their house early on. Many could even afford property taxes on a current market valuation but the law still means they pay much less.
If someone rented an apartment with some friends there is a good chance the landlord is paying peanuts in property tax anyway.
Addressing the property tax imbalance is far more important than kicking out people living in cars. Many of them are genuinely out of options, despite this anecdote.
I agree Prop 13 is also terrible, leads to large inequity in property taxes, and this problem should be solved, however, I'm not sure its directly related to whether you should be able to live in your car on the street for free.
I agree it's a separate issue, but if the reason is "these people aren't paying property taxes" then it's a much lower priority than reforming Prop 13.
>> If the cost of the car registration included the true cost of parking on city streets living in your car would likely be much less attractive for these people who can afford housing but simply choose not to.
If the cost of property taxes included the true cost of owning a house in the bay area, living here would be a much less attractive for people who cannot afford housing here but simply got in earlier and live at the expense of newcomers (who are working hard and struggling to make ends meet)
This view presents a selfish and very NIMBY attitude.
The gentleman in question paid off his student loans, contributes to his retirement, and sounds OK with life. None of that has ant bearing on if he should live on the street.
Anti-density home owners in California might be the problem. They shouldn't be able to stunt the housing market for long periods, especially not living in it. If you do this, you are taking advantage of the system supported by tax paying citizens who balk at, or can't afford, to rent.
If the cost of supporting regressive anti-density measures included the true cost then home owners would be overturning Prop 13 and removing building height restrictions. Instead, they simply choose not to.
> You shouldn't be allowed to live in cars on the street
Why not? You cite taxes. If i am allowed to park my car overnight somewhere, what would disallow me from sleeping in that same car over the same period?
I live in a beach town popular with people driving down the Australian East coast in vans. The problem we have here is that these vans don't have toilet facilities so you end up with people using the bushes along the beach as toilets.
Right so then how do you offset the cost of having to hire rangers to patrol the beach areas at night all year round? And how does that fix the problem where people just wait for the ranger to pass then quickly go and do what they need to do?
It's not an easy problem. The town I live in is debating it and working with other coastal councils to try and come up with solutions since the drivers do bring in a lot of revenue to the towns. Overnight washrooms are prone to vandalism that makes them costly to maintain for an example of a problem with an "obvious" solution.
You are going to need rangers to patrol anyway to see if the cars/vans have people sleeping in them.
Have overnight washrooms and have cameras to monitor them(obviously not inside the washrooms) as well as the streets. It's not a foolproof solution and the council still has to make a decision if all the expenses are worth it or not.
>You are going to need rangers to patrol anyway to see if the cars/vans have people sleeping in them.
Yes but they only have to do a single pass and they can nab everyone sleeping in their vehicle. To catch people going to the toilet in public they need to be there all the time.
>Have overnight washrooms and have cameras to monitor them(obviously not inside the washrooms)
What good do cameras outside the washrooms do to stop vandalism inside?
They have switched the highway rest stops to these around me. I did stop at one a few months back where someone had stuffed various stuff in all the toilets to make them unusable. They must have did quite the number on them since it was still shut and fenced off over a week later when I drove past it again!
What about other people who want to use parking in the neighborhood, if your RV is parked in the spot permanently no one else can use the spot. If there was a parking tax, even an absurd one with Prop 13 level restrictions it would still be better than free parking for your RV on the street.
I agree, but there's a range of people who live in their cars. Some cause destruction, trash and probably aren't employed or trying to work in a legitimate way. Hard drug use, crime etc are all likely.
You make it sound like having a weak bladder is a given. 'Don't wake up in the middle of the night needing to go to the toilet' is a perfectly viable option.
Except that isn't a solution because lots of people obviously do live in their van's without the ability to go from when they get to it to when they can get to a washroom next without having to go.
So to implement your "solution" we'd need to what. Assess bladder strength in individuals then give them some sort of license to allow them to sleep in their cars?
No, you'd attach a strong punishment to public urination/defecation and then let people be their own judges on whether or not they can handle van dwelling.
If it's a problem then keep increasing the punishment or ability to catch perpetrators.
If a strong punishment doesn't solve the problem why would increasing it help?
>ability to catch perpetrators.
How do you do this in a way that is affordable to local councils?
See this is another non-solution from you. In a perfect world we wouldn't have a problem but a perfect world is the only place where these solutions are going to solve one too.
Because there is already punishments for it and in some places like the US they are already very high(in that they can sometimes get you on sex offender registries). But the problem still exists. Alas just increasing punishment isn't a solution. Especially when the likelihood of catching someone is low.
>Cameras are cheap.
Paying to have people watch them isn't cheap though and it's not like with a store where you only need to check it when there is an incident you need to watch it all the time. You need people monitoring a lot of cameras all the time.
In a car that's going to be a problem, but in anything larger (van, RV, box truck, etc.) a "honey bucket" may be an option, or probably better a camping toilet homemade or commercial (heavy plastic bag, seat of some sort, cat litter whether clay or crystal/dessicant).
Most van's I've seen/been in don't have the space to use one really but it's a possibility and more so in the larger vehicles(though RV's should have a full toilet). Of course you then have the problem of people not emptying them in appropriate dump facilities and leaving human waste in public garbage bins.
Human waste in public bins is likely an unavoidable element of this, but if "properly" handled/packaged at least it's a contained problem. The impression I've got is that in some parts of San Francisco human waste on the sidewalks can be more of a problem.
> You shouldn't be allowed to live in cars on the street, people paying property taxes are paying for those streets.
Because of Prop 13 homeowners are the ones getting a free ride on property tax. The wide streets in SF, so big you could build another row of buildings in the middle, are caused by Americans' obsession with putting cars in places that could be served by subways.
I don't see any problem with someone wanting to sleep in their car in a parked lot that otherwise wouldn't be occupied. The fact that homeowners pay property tax doesn't have anything to do with anything. I rent and I don't pay property taxes either.
If it makes you feel better, these people pay income and sales tax.
I'd love to find out what SF Bay Area property owners who rent their properties out to others are doing with their extraordinary windfall profits. Are there any academic studies or reports that explore this question?
I'm currently converting a 25 ft former shuttle bus to my home. I make enough money to buy a house here in Austin but have chosen to live in a vehicle.
I like tiny homes and wanted to build my own place so it would meet my wants and needs. Zoning makes building small hard and land costs make it very expensive per square foot.
I like to travel and would rather take my home with me than sleep in a hotel or hostel.
I haven't been to Silicon Valley in ~15 years, is living in outer suburbs and commuting not an option? Here in Seattle, you can live in the outer suburbs and pretty easily get to Seattle. I'm not crazy about my 45-60 minute commute, but I like not paying Seattle-sized rent.
45-60 minutes away from San Francisco (I'd argue that's the epicenter of SV today), with traffic, might get you to Oakland or somewhere in the peninsula (not even close to San Jose). The rents there are also ridiculously high, although slightly better than San Francisco.
To actually live in cities further away you'd need to drive at least 90 minutes, and realistically 2 hours - each way.
No you can't you liar. Seattle is the worst city on the planet. You will live in a crime riddled suburb and pay outrageous rents with awful commutes.
Don't come to Seattle. Stay in wonderful sunny california. It's so much better than Seattle.
;)
I'm probably gonna end up moving out of Seattle because of the rent. It's affordable on my salary, but I want to start really saving up so I can have more freedom.
I commute to San Francisco every day - 15 min drive to BART then an hour on BART. About as far as you could expect a reasonable person to love.
It costs me $300/month to pay for commute and parking, and a 2 BR apartment runs us $2500/month. It's a nicer area (for wife/daughter) but it doesn't really get far below $2,000 in even the worst areas, and that commute wears on you.
When I worked remotely for a bay area startup and did some hypothetical apartment shopping, there was no amount of rent saved that came close to being worth the commute time. It was a min-max problem with no optimum. Live close and take a significant lifestyle hit, live far and give up time for any sort of lifestyle. I chose instead to live remote and take a work-interaction situation hit which ultimately led to leaving that position. Oh well, such is life.
How about the folks who work for the tech companies in the area, are they also struggling with rent or is the average salary of an engineer in SV enough to cover the recent increases?
I earn a substantial income in the Bay Area. It's not the $250k/yr Google experience, but it's in that ballpark (within 25%). My commute into the city is about 90 minutes one way (using trains and biking or walking). Rent on the attached home my family lives in is half my take-home pay. The only reason it isn't more than half after the 8% increase my landlord added this last renewal is because I got a substantial raise.
Assuming you're making 25% less than $250k/yr, that puts you at ~$190k/yr. Are you saying you pay ~90k/yr ($7.5k/month!) to live 90 min away from the city? If so, what are your living conditions?
It's my pay net of taxes, pre-tax savings like 401k, HSA, etc., not half my gross pay. That amount (total) is around $90k/year (give or take--I'm not giving exact numbers, here), and if you divide that by 12, roughly half (again, not exact) is rent.
My family (self, wife, two children) live what I'd describe as a modest lifestyle (for America). The home is big enough to be comfortable but not big enough to have "extras" (e.g. there's no space suitable for a private home-office). I would normally describe it as a comfortably middle-class (not affluent) lifestyle, but considering the savings and other perks the taxes pay for that'd be a bit disingenuous, in my view.
I do think the rent is excessive, though. The same home we're living in would sell for perhaps $150k-$250k (depending on neighborhood) in the location my wife's family lives. The high end of that range is a 25% down-payment on what the units in the community we live in sell for the last few months; a ridiculous valuation by any reasonable standard. There isn't as much cultural variety there, but it's not exactly a cultural wasteland (e.g. there are a variety of native-come-to-America run restaurants for Afghan and other similar foods, stores, a non-trivial presence of foreign-born non-whites, etc.). The offerings of the Bay Area don't justify the huge difference in prices.
Good. Let's see what the SV folk do with the SF NIMBY folk. There should be enough socially minded individuals in SV with the Google or Apple like money to go to zoning meetings to allow more than 5 story buildings. Time for the SJW folk at those companies to put their future property money where their controlling mouths are.
Do recall that Google itself couldn't even get a couple small bridges built in mountain view to save the polluting commute of its own workers between parts of campus.
But even Google money can't shake a small city council.
Serious question, why do the major tech companies put up with this and not slowly migrate elsewhere? I get it's a bit of a chicken vs. the egg game when it comes to where the work is & where the talent is, but the bay area seems like it's at such a critical mass.
Because when they're doing well, the benefits (to them) out-way the costs.
It was only really obvious to me what the benefits were after I visited Palo Alto. For Stanford spinouts, you can literally go visit 10 VCs within a 20min walk. If must make life so much easier.
For larger companies, they still want to interact with VCs and aquire startups. They also want access to other forms of capital/banking services which are available in the area.
Google is just one voice. There are people that actually pay taxes on their homes there. Enough of those people should be able to raise a fuss, any fuss. I don't think they will. P(Fussing | SWJ) = .01. There's my odds.
