Every Sunday my eight-year-old daughter asks, “Is today a Navigators Day?” She loves church and Children’s Religious Education, but the best Sundays of all are the weeks she puts on her green kerchief and goes to Navigators. She wouldn’t have those if it weren’t for Nathan Harris.
Nathan started coming to our church three years ago when he and his then-seven-year-old daughter, Sage, were new to the area and looking for a community they could call home. They found it at our church, and what they didn’t find ready-made, Nathan helped create. He started a unicycle club, and we soon saw UU Unicyclists all over the parking lots and paths of the church. He learned about Navigators USA, a bias-free, co-ed scouting program, and asked our minister of religious education, Dan Harper, how to go about starting a chapter. It wasn’t long before Chapter 42 was born, and my daughter and a dozen other kids were camping on the church grounds, hiking, learning how to split wood and build a fire, geocaching, cooking, sending up rockets, you name it.
Now Nathan is about to leave the area. He doesn’t want to; he likes his job as a school psychologist in East Palo Alto, the church community, the friends he and his daughter have made. But the rent on their tiny apartment–he calls it “the hotel room”–is rising by 10%, and he can’t find anything else.
When he moves away, someone else will have to co-lead Our Whole Lives (OWL), our sexuality education program for middle schoolers in and beyond our congregation—or maybe we won’t be able to find a replacement. Someone else will have to lead the five-mile hike, if they can keep up with an energetic bunch of 7-10-year-olds. Sage’s friend who looks so much like her that we call them doppelgangers will have to say goodbye to his twin.
This has happened in our church more times than I can count. Someone who is a small-group leader, a teacher, a friend, a mentor, a singer in the choir, a Board member, reluctantly pulls up roots and moves to somewhere with affordable housing. It happens to property owners, though more often to renters; it happens to professionals like Nathan, though more often to those with lower-paying or part-time jobs. They want to stay, and we want them to, but they can’t. Our public policies are forcing them to leave, hitting our community with loss upon loss.
In our church, our big annual fundraiser is an auction of goods, services, and hosted events. An auction makes a great fundraiser. It makes a terrible system for delivering the necessities of life.
Yet that is how we sell and rent housing: to the highest bidder. And the highest bidders around here have such deep pockets that those who manage to offer what the seller is asking have little chance of winning the bid. Think of all the times you’ve heard of a would-be buyer offering considerably more than was asked, yet losing out to someone who could pay cash. And renters: when has your rent gone down, or even simply kept pace with inflation? In the past year, Bay Area average rents have risen over 14%. Those of us who didn’t get a 14% pay raise, such as Nathan: where are they supposed to live?
The answer we’ve given is clear: they’re supposed to go away.
And when they’ve gone, who will be the psychologists in our schools? Who will be the teachers, the police officers, the store managers, much less the gardeners, the cooks, the janitors? Who will create our scouting programs or volunteer in our schools?
With our housing-only-for-the-highest-bidder system, we have made our community increasingly hostile to anyone in the mere 99%. That is not sustainable for our families, our earth (many people burn fossil fuels for 20 or more hours every week driving to work here from their affordable homes in the Central Valley), or the quality of life of our communities.
These market forces aren’t all to the bad, and in many times and places, they have served most people. They aren’t serving us. They are ripping us apart. We need cities to stabilize rents and preserve enough housing that’s affordable to the people who make our communities run—who are our communities.
My daughter was hoping Nathan would teach her to ride a unicycle. She’s got a few more weeks to learn. Then he and Sage are off to Sacramento. I wish them luck. And I wish us luck too. But we’ll have to make our own luck, by summoning the political will to make some changes, now, before the next Nathan and Sage are driven out of our lives.
Note: I wrote this in May, 2015, and submitted it as an op-ed piece to various newspapers in our housing-strapped region. I’m sure many other local communities, from workplace teams to PTAs to altar guilds, experience similar losses and stresses as their members are forced to be transient, but alas, none of the papers chose to run it. So here it is, a bit past the time. Nathan and Sage are now settled in to their new lives in a home they can afford and that has a lot more space; our loss, Sacramento’s gain. Someone else will have to teach Munchkin to ride a unicycle, if they know how.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 22, 2015 at 7:00 am
Pamela Anderegg
Look into Boiceville Cottages, Brooktondale or Slaterville Springs, New York!
LikeLike
August 22, 2015 at 10:33 am
irrevspeckay
Super useful metaphor of housing to the highest bidder. And shame on the local news outlets for not taking you up on publishing this. I wonder if there are some affordable housing advocates to whom you can send the post and they can send it out to their networks? Thanks for your witness and voice.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 4:36 pm
timbartik
You should be aware that among the vast majority of all economists, on both the left and the right, the problem with housing costs in places such as Silicon Valley is attributed to be largely due to local zoning and other policies that restrict the production of additional housing.
This is not just a local problem for Silicon Valley. There’s some evidence that aggregate U.S. economic growth and economic prosperity is significantly reduced because highly productive areas such as Silicon Valley have such ridiculous housing policies.
Where I live (Kalamazoo, Michigan), and among many areas in the U.S., housing prices are anchored to the cost of new construction, which is relatively affordable given that there is a lot of available land that is zoned for new construction at reasonable density levels. In places such as Silicon Valley, not so much.
Read Matt Yglesias’s short e-book, The Rent is Too Damn High. Read just about any urban or regional economist on the topic.
I suspect that on THIS issue, many UUs, unfortunately, are more part of the problem than part of the solution. Their liberal good intentions behind restricting new housing developments at denser levels lead to some very un-liberal consequences, with regressive effects on the income distribution, and a decline in the overall U.S. standard of living. Who gains? Existing homeowners, who are hardly an oppressed class.
LikeLike
September 1, 2015 at 9:21 am
Amy Zucker Morgenstern
Yes–our congregation is more divided on this than many issues. People want to preserve a lot of open space; traffic is already a problem; they like their spacious neighborhoods, which are why they moved to a place like Palo Alto, which was once a good place for middle-income families to find a home.
Actually, I don’t entirely disagree. Looking at San Francisco: it is the second most densely populated metropolitan area (I’m not sure what the boundaries are, but I don’t think they extend to Silicon Valley; the census description is SF-Oakland-Fremont). SF itself is only 50 square miles and they are very densely packed ones compared to most cities. Better transportation planning can make density bearable, of course. One very knowledgeable housing activist in my congregation, who is devoted to reducing homelessness issues, thinks that better planning and increasing housing stock are a big part of the answer.
But I don’t think increasing stock is going to work in our area. As long as tech keeps booming, zoning allows people to turn a house they don’t occupy into a hotel (Air BnB etc.), and international investors want a piece of SF, the demand for housing will keep going up. So many of the people seeking housing have huge incomes that if we let market forces alone drive the prices, they will rise. There are some safeguards, such as a below-market-rate set-aside in some cities (SF and Palo Alto among them), but they do not serve enough people nor a wide enough range of incomes. It seems likely that if we doubled housing stock, we would have twice as many luxury units, and the situation for the non-rich would barely be relieved.
A recent Berkeley study suggests the Bay Area is going to be an enclave for the rich, and it sure looks that way. The scale is unprecedented as far as I know, with the ring of poorer neighborhoods where lower-income workers can live being pushed out many miles. It’s interesting to add your perspective on how it’s affecting the economy nationally. Tech is spreading geographically, but a lot of people want to be right here.
http://urbandisplacement.org/
I dream about a one-day walkout by, say, everyone who has to conmute an hour or more into SF. The city would shut down for lack of teachers, Muni drivers, retail clerks, clerical staff, etc. I don’t know what else it will take to make the Board of Supervisors realize that you just can’t populate a city with only rich people.
LikeLike
October 6, 2015 at 8:41 am
timbartik
You might find of interest this recent article by a journalist at the Washington Post, that quotes a number of economists on this issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/06/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-city-that-has-run-out-of-room/
This includes some estimates by Enrico Moretti, a very well-respected economist at Berkeley, that Bay Area probably has space for 30 to 40% more people without making dramatic changes to its character and overall “feel”. If housing supply in the Bay Area was expanded by 40%, I suspect this would have a substantial effect on local housing prices.
LikeLike