> One of the things that's never made sense to me is the
> liberal/progressive/tenant's advocacy argument that not enough affordable
> housing is being built.
This is almost always a false claim and it usually defies logic.
"Affordable Housing" means subsidized housing. Subsidized housing
needs to have access to effective public transportation. Subsidized
housing does not need to be located in the most expensive parts of the
city. Other than subsidized housing, the cost of housing is purely
driven by supply and demand. Who cares if "affordable housing" is
being built. The important thing is that ENOUGH housing is being built
to satisfy the demand.
So, the question is whether or not a person who earns minimum wage
could afford to live in the city and raise a family. Short answer is,
"OF COURSE NOT!" I worked three jobs and shared an apartment! And I
didn't get married and have kids until I could afford to. Well, you
can never "afford to", but that's another story. I made a lot of
choices that fit the income, and I worked long hours to be able to
afford the choices I made. It also meant that I chose to live in
communities where the income/expense ratio worked. I turned down a job
in a major city because that ratio didn't.
Housing here in Alaska is expensive. We definitely got a little bit of
sticker shock with the move from rural Iowa. But we're actually
spending exactly the same amount as we would have in Highland's Ranch,
Colorado. And we've got an insanely beautiful view. Besides, with the
increase in pay, it fully offsets the rent increase.
> No, these aren't young people like those in People's Park long ago, these
> are down and out folks, including way too many families with children. Yes,
> I've met and chatted with some. Those have been ordinary folks who've just
> had things go wrong. And no, I don't have any ideas for a solution that's
> politically possible these days.
We've got at least three classes of homeless in Anchorage. The
homeless families definitely exist, but are rarely part of the
permanent crowd. These are the ones that have been evicted for some
reason or have no friends/family that they can share an apartment
with. You'll see them live out of their cars and hang out at the
library until closing. These are the ones that should be in subsidized
housing and are generally waiting in line for the next apartment to
open up. Then you have the young adults who are living out of their
vehicle or hiding away in somebody's tool shed. They're working every
day, going to college, and doing everything they can to earn enough
money for their down payment. Then you have the permanent homeless.
There are homeless camps all over the place, but mostly concentrated
in a few locations. These are the types that either are affected by
mental illness or extreme substance abuse. Rarely do the three classes
of homeless interact or share locations unless a person is crossing
the line from one category to the other. There is a fourth class here
that spans the other three classes. It's the people who came here from
the villages and came from a subsistence living culture. Living out of
a tent, panhandling and just making by is no different than back where
they came from. It really comes down to whether or not they've got a
substance abuse problem. But they are generally unemployable because
as long as they can score a meal once in a while and not totally
freeze to death at night, they're no better off or worse off then
where they came from. THAT is something rather unique to Alaska.
Also unique to Alaska are the Native Corporations. These are
effectively the governments of the indigenous people groups and
they're supposed to take care of their own. And they do... up to a
point. If they cut you off, you're really screwed up.
> I see articles saying that the country as a whole is close to full
> employment, with stories of employers giving raises without being asked, to
> retain trained and experienced employees. Something's out of whack in a way
> I don't understand.
I was told many years ago that whenever the unemployment rate drops
down below 6%, we effectively have full employment. Critical is about
4%. When you look at national average, that includes the 30-60%
unemployment rates of some regions or cities, countered by 1%
unemployment in others. Do note that of the above mentioned homeless,
pretty much none are available. The homeless families may have no
viable bread-winner in the family (momma with 4 kids and no father),
the young adult who is already "employed", and the unemployable. There
are no qualified job seekers in the bunch that aren't already hoofing
it. Legalized pot has not helped. We've had something like a 20 year
head-start on the rest of the country in that regard and the long-term
effect is not pretty.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|