We're
sometimes discouraged by the lackluster Northcoast economy, and I agree
we should attract and foster businesses that provide well-paying and meaningful
jobs. Minimum wage retail or burger-flipping careers don't cut it.
Still, we should be careful what we hope for, because we might get it.
Consideration of the currently "booming" Bay Area economy may help clarify
our own situation.
"Some
people have too damn much money," I muttered recently, when two 20-somethings
whipped dangerously around the corner in front of me at 8th and Clement
in San Francisco, stereo booming from their shiny new souped-up BMW sport
convertible.
San
Francisco... In one of the more courageous acts of my life, I moved
there with suitcase and backpack in 1980, knowing no one, 22 years old,
naive, fresh with a philosophy degree from suburban CSU Fullerton and a
few months volunteer experience with the disabled. I figured I could
live there cheaply without a car and dramatically broaden my life experience
through exposure to the myriad of cultures and lifestyles packed into this
small and beautiful big city. It worked. I quickly landed a
low-paying job working 25 hours a week with fascinating people who were
then called "mentally retarded" but are now known by the more respectful
but cumbersome appellation "developmentally disabled." I loved these
folks and had a blast with them while scraping together enough money to
share a nice old Victorian flat with roomates who became good friends.
I was intimate with Golden Gate Park, relaxed at private clifftop lookouts
over the entrance to the Bay, became quickly "streetwise," got very fit
by walking and bicycling everywhere, realized my capacity for overflowing
joy and self-expression at Grateful Dead
concerts, frequented museums and fascinating neighborhoods
and discovered a thousand secret treasures hidden throughout the city.
It saddens
me this can't be readily done by a young person today, due to skyrocketing
rents and a miniscule vacancy rate. Perhaps some "dot-com" professionals
earning buckets of money can swing it, but they might lack time to enjoy
the Park after a typical 60 or 70-hour workweek.
The
horrendous Bay Area housing market reveals the dark side of the "boom."
Too many people with too much money chase available dwellings, driving
prices into the stratosphere. A one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco
can cost $2000 a month or more, if you can find one at all. People
pay $700-800 to share rentals with several others. The median
home price (half are above, half below) in San Francisco is $425,000; in
Marin County it's $525,000. A mediocre tract house in San Jose can
fetch half a million--a "starter home" for young urban professionals.
My sister's former roomate toured a 2-bedroom "shack" in Sausalito
for a million.
In San
Francisco, there's war over housing. The City has long had rent control--rents
can rise only slowly unless a unit becomes vacant, in which case the new
rent can be fixed at whatever the market will bear. This creates
obvious motivation for owners to have entrenched tenants leave, but local
laws severely curtail the conditions justifying eviction. Rent control
can also squelch tenants' freedoms, as one might feel "prisoner" in an
apartment when moving would
entail an immediate doubling or tripling of rent.
Understandably
frustrated when their rental income is well below market rates, many owners
are taking their buildings out of the rental market altogether. This
happens when a multi-unit building is reclassified into condominiums and
each unit is sold separately. "Condo-conversions" are limited to
250 buildings per year citywide, but another procedure utilizes "tenancy
in common" ownership for similar purposes, and is enabling the impending
eviction of my sister.
This
will be the third time in 12 years Vicky has been evicted due to a house
being sold and the new owners deciding to move into her flat (one of the
legal causes for eviction). Twice before, entire 3 or 4-unit buildings
were sold. This time, the landlord (who lives upstairs in the 2-unit
building) found a buyer for just the lower flat, and is entering a tenancy
in common arrangement with her. The 2-bedroom flat sold for $390,000,
and is currently in escrow. My sister and her roomate expect their
30-day notice soon. The new owner (who herself was
evicted from her previous place) told them she
was ready to "play hardball" if they didn't vacate promptly. This
common scenario creates a citywide billiard-ball effect rife with animosity.
San
Francisco is becoming a city for the rich; rent control merely slows this
process. The probable results are decreased racial, social class,
and cultural diversity. Highbrow culture and entertainment will undoubtedly
thrive, but "starving artists"--from whose ranks our visionaries sometimes
spring--may disappear. In the absence of a nurturing environment
such as tolerant and diverse San Francisco, such people might abandon their
creative urges and become
assimilated into mass culture, a great loss to us all.
The
benefits of the oft-ballyhooed "boom" aren't "trickling down" to everyone;
the Bay Area's exploding high-tech industry is driving the economy to new
highs while many hard-working people have declining real income along with
increasing pressure and hours of work while sometimes being literally driven
from their homes.
Many
in Humboldt agree that we need to diversify the local economy, but how
best to accomplish this? I don't envy our leaders their difficult
jobs--when thinking about San Francisco housing issues I am flummoxed about
what is right or wrong or what (if anything) should be done.
I do,
however, feel confident in saying we shouldn't envy the Bay Area's "boom"
when working out our own destiny--they just have a set of problems different
from ours. Who among us would want to see lots of Jaguars, Beemers,
and Mercedes cruising up and down 101, or see houses in Eureka snatched
up like hotcakes at a million a pop? Not me.
Thanks
for reading, and bye for now!