Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Combination of cost of housing outpacing even the ability of those in the middle class to keep up and the ability to live outside most of the year.
Because of the strong economy, well until recently, there has been strong demand for housing. Those working in the high demand industries have the ability to pay the huge increases in housing.
That's typical of any metro city though. Any major city, where the population congregates towards the center of those metros, will have upper middle class folks out-bidding lower income folks for rents/homes. So, in a sense, all metros create this kind of homeless situation. But, why are the Cali metros at a higher number?
On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would not review City of Boise vs. Martin, a 2018 ruling handed down by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Martin, the appeals court struck down prohibitions on sleeping and camping in public that the Idaho city had enacted to address homelessness. Boise’s ordinances did not pass constitutional muster, according to the 9th Circuit, because they inflicted “cruel and unusual punishment” on that city’s homeless population.
By allowing Martin to stand, the Supreme Court leaves local officials powerless to stop the expansion of homeless encampments.
So the 9th circuit ruled that closing down tent cities is cruel and unusual punishment in a sense?
That's typical of any metro city though. Any major city, where the population congregates towards the center of those metros, will have upper middle class folks out-bidding lower income folks for rents/homes. So, in a sense, all metros create this kind of homeless situation. But, why are the Cali metros at a higher number?
I guess in part its how you define metro. At least in the SF Bay Area the impact it pretty wide spread. Its not just the city center areas that are being impacted. I think its also a matter of degree; the gap is pretty wide from the top and bottom. I've seen rent increases alone which are likely larger then what you would have to pay elsewhere in the country. How does person working on the low end of the scale ($20 to $10 per hour) afford $2,000/month rent?
The median price, the point at which half of homes sold for more and half for less, fell to $928,000, down 2.3% from $950,000 in 2018.
[..]
Oakland-Berkeley was the strongest submarket last year, attracting buyers seeking an “urban ambience” at a lower cost than San Francisco, he said.
Abio Properties agent Shannon Prokup was stunned when a home she listed on Ashby Avenue in Berkeley attracted more than 400 people at open houses last Saturday and Sunday. The home has two bedrooms, one bathroom and 1,100 square feet; it is priced at $825,000. “I was not expecting that kind of turnout,” she said. But “there is not a ton on the market under a million dollars. And interest rates are still low.”
[..]
The median price paid for a single-family existing home in the Bay Area fell from $727,000 in 2006 to $430,000 in 2009. It rose to $500,000 in 2010 (thanks in part to a first-time home buyer credit), then dropped again in 2011, to $460,000. After that it embarked on a string of stratospheric increases that brought it to $950,000 in 2018.
So the 9th circuit ruled that closing down tent cities is cruel and unusual punishment in a sense?
Backed by the US Supreme Court which chose not to take up the case; ie the 9ths circuits ruling stands.
On one level I understand. I don't think we should criminalize poverty. In the SF Bay Area those living in poverty would include many with full time jobs. The ruling does make it very difficult for a city to deal with what is a regional issue.
Backed by the US Supreme Court which chose not to take up the case; ie the 9ths circuits ruling stands.
On one level I understand. I don't think we should criminalize poverty. In the SF Bay Area those living in poverty would include many with full time jobs. The ruling does make it very difficult for a city to deal with what is a regional issue.
The majority of state decisions a left up to the states, the Fed Supreme Court passes on a majority of the state specific issues as it's always been their M.O. to do.
I don't think you should criminalize vagrants either. All that does is clog up the prison system and waste tax dollars. But I also don't think you should ENABLE them either. Allowing open drug use, open public waste excretion, public sex, etc is just like putting a pedophile in an elementary school cafeteria to do his prison time...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
