Horror at the rave (San Francisco, Oakland: renters, eviction, how much)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

But Lefty Liberals don't want building codes!??

You have to be lying.

All depends if your are the ones making the rules or the ones having to live under them.

Have you ever been to Burning Man?

A lot of my friends live off grid... they want to live a simple life and have no use for building codes and openly oppose law enforcement...

Santa Cruz mountains are an hour away and might as well be a thousand miles away...

Home schooling, communal living, living off the land... etc...

The fire is a great tragedy on so many levels...

My point is laws and government only work with the support of the governed...

One call from a resident to report a code issue and Oakland would have been all over the place...

[Winston Smith]

Just like all serious catastrophes, no doubt this incident will be a historical milestone and a president-setting pivot point for many things in California and beyond. Aside the most obvious -- people using sub-standard and condemned buildings for shelter, parties, hanging out, whatever -- what does this fire say about housing in the Bay Area and, for that matter, most of coastal California? It's my understanding that this building provided permanent residences for individuals and families. Overcrowding and illegal housing are facts of life in The Golden State for two reasons: not enough housing available, and the housing that is available is very expensive. So now what?

[Ultrarunner]

These types of properties are sought out by two predominant groups... those of little means and those that embrace the counter culture lifestyle...

One note that I'm sure will be expanded on is the property had jury rigged boot legged electricity from a neighboring property...

A friend had a warehouse two blocks from there... it was converted into a work/live space...

There was a lot unrest and tension... he did it 100% legal with seismic, fire and building upgrades including sprinklers...

The units were quickly occupied... the problem is the cost was affordable only to young San Francisco types with money... none of the local artisans or music people could afford it or come anywhere close... pre-renovation the units were $500 and post quickly went for $2500 and this was few years back.

Housing is tight for the entire Bay Area and for years those that couldn't afford other areas "Always" had Oakland...

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Just like all serious catastrophes, no doubt this incident will be a historical milestone and a president-setting pivot point for many things in California and beyond. Aside the most obvious -- people using sub-standard and condemned buildings for shelter, parties, hanging out, whatever -- what does this fire say about housing in the Bay Area and, for that matter, most of coastal California? It's my understanding that this building provided permanent residences for individuals and families. Overcrowding and illegal housing are facts of life in The Golden State for two reasons: not enough housing available, and the housing that is available is very expensive. So now what?

You are very correct - this warehouse being used as a work-live studio by a dozen people at a time is very much a reflection of the housing crisis in the Bay Area (and coastal CA as a whole).

I agree that it is going to fuel a lot of debate of future development in the Bay Area, but my realistic prediction is what's just going to happen is that these people are going to be (perhaps rightly) kicked out of these places and forced to move elsewhere. This tragic fire isn't going to turn your typical Bay Area NIMBY into a pro-housing person...and considering we're not even building enough to keep pace with the influx of people with high paying jobs, these people aren't going to find housing that works for them.

I don't see a solution (that is realistic) that keeps these type of people here living in these kind of places...and they can't afford traditional housing...so their only option will be move elsewhere. It might be other areas of the Bay Area (further out, less gentrified), but over time it'll be completely out of the region.

End result: goodbye underground art scene.


Some will say - "well, move somewhere you can afford". And while that simplistic argument is correct from one perspective, it does miss the ultimate point of why these people came here to begin with. That culture that they seek out will continue to be eroded away as they themselves move away.

Things change - Oakland hasn't always been home to these collectives...while I'm personally sad to see people displaced, I understand this reality. Maybe a "new Oakland" will sprout up in some cheaper metro one day...

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Some will say - "well, move somewhere you can afford". And while that simplistic argument is correct from one perspective, it does miss the ultimate point of why these people came here to begin with. ...

I'm glad you mentioned exactly this, the overly simplistic argument of "just move elsewhere." The notion does not address population growth, which is exploding in both the Bay Area and in Southern California. We are facing overcrowding everywhere. In a place like Oakland or San Francisco, it takes the form of people living in warehouses or other commercial properties that are not set up nor zoned for living. In Southern California's suburban landscape, the overcrowding takes the shape of families living three at a time in single-family homes. People are living in garages and sheds without adequate plumbing, and with electricity fed through extension chords. It's a disaster that the illogic of "just move elsewhere" won't solve.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

I'm glad you mentioned exactly this, the overly simplistic argument of "just move elsewhere." The notion does not address population growth, which is exploding in both the Bay Area and in Southern California. We are facing overcrowding everywhere. In a place like Oakland or San Francisco, it takes the form of people living in warehouses or other commercial properties that are not set up nor zoned for living. In Southern California's suburban landscape, the overcrowding takes the shape of families living three at a time in single-family homes. People are living in garages and sheds without adequate plumbing, and with electricity fed through extension chords. It's a disaster that the illogic of "just move elsewhere" won't solve.

As a nation we are not near over crowding. Try driving across the country and you'll know what I mean.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

As a nation we are not near over crowding. Try driving across the country and you'll know what I mean.

But people don't live in those wide open spaces. They live where there are jobs, which means where there is infrastructure and enough population to support businesses. Those areas are subject to overcrowding and to sprawl, with long commutes. It is very common for long time residents of most cities to complain that their city has grown so quickly, it has outgrown its infrastructure and resources.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

But people don't live in those wide open spaces. They live where there are jobs, which means where there is infrastructure and enough population to support businesses. Those areas are subject to overcrowding and to sprawl, with long commutes. It is very common for long time residents of most cities to complain that their city has grown so quickly, it has outgrown its infrastructure and resources.

That's more the result of local politica. In cities like Dublin, Tracy, and the like? Developers run those towns and city council members and local media is bought and paid for.

It's like Wallstreet does in National politics, just on a local scale, with local elites.

It's like how Oakland's mayor is bought and paid for by big time property investors. She pays enough lip service to the citizens, but corporate property investors run that town. And the port as some influence too. But only enough to where infrastructure is adequate enough to get goods to and from there.

There are roads in Oakland that have not been paved since the great depression/WW2. And not just the hood, long time affluent white areas too.

[WizardOfRadical]

This is a failure on several levels.

1) Tightwad tax payers who did not pay to adequately staff code enforcement. Had they been up to proper staff levels, this place would have been shut down. If every property owner ponies up an extra few hundred bucks a year, a squad of more rookies could have been working the job.

2) Blind eye voters and city leaders who won't see nuisance properties like these as problems, and think they are creative spaces.

3) Slumlordes who get away with substandard property.

4) Faux bohemian entrepreneurs, who are selfish and only care about their own fiscal well being.

5) Idiots who do stuff to cause fires so bad they can't be put out. Funny, in my 32 years of life I have never started a large fire. And I have consumed a multitude of drugs in my lifetime.

[xani]

How about 36 manslaughter charges.
This would teach some about code. Wouldn't even need an inspector.
This would have been next Airbnb.