Reply
Platinum Regular Contributor
tjh
Posts: 4,946
Registered: ‎01-09-2010
0

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?

[ Edited ]

BigManny:

 

"Low income families does not automatically mean drug dealers"

 

True, I've known many poor people and have even been one myself, that didn't turn to drugs or crime as a way to alleviate their plight.  Available statistics would support this.  However, there is a correlation between lower income and higher crime rates.  The debate over whether this is nature or nurture.  But, it doesn't change the actuality.

 

"I know he is from low income family? His dads a postal worker". 

 

Uh, a governmental postal worker's pay and benefits aren't even close to making them poor and it certainly won't qualify them for Section 8 rental assistance.  He most likely makes more than an elementary school teacher.  The defined benefit pension plan he has pretty much makes his net worth solidly middle class, if one calculates the PV of that future, guaranteed benefit.  It's certainly more than most on this forum have "promised" to them. 

 

You like numbers?  OK.  Using the same crime index that you used, I see that Antioch went from 313 in 1999 to 466 in 2010.  That would indicate a significant increase - 49%! - in crime and put us at a solid #3 on your list.  Guess what else happened in that same period of time?  The number of section 8 rentals went from almost nothing to the second highest in Contra Costa County behind only Richmond.  Of course, I can't locate those figures now, but they were published during the Section 8 lawsuit fiasco we went through.

 

And, from 2000 to 2009 median household income in Antioch DROPPED from 2000 to 2009 $60m to $57m.  That's not good!

 

Finally, take a look again at your crime rate chart.  Oakland is way ahead of everyone else.  Guess what else increased significantly from 1991 to 2010 in Antioch?  The number of people from Oakland (and Richmond) who moved to Antioch to escape the high crime that surrounded them.  Guess what came along with them?  The crime numbers are indicative.

 

And, I've always had a problem with so called crime statistics.  They often only measure the more serious crimes such as murder, rape and robbery.  They usually don't include lesser crimes like property crimes or vandalism, which to my mind having been victimized by such, understates the crime rate.  If you ever been burglarized, had your car broken into or been accosted by street thugs, you know that while such crimes may pale compared to murder or rape, they are very disturbing to the victim and deleteriously affect one's quality of life, particularly when they happen on a somewhat regular basis.

 

That's a major reason I could never live in a city such as Oakland or SF.  The dichotomy of paying a high price for an abode in these high density areas while getting gussied up to go out for a nice dinner or show but having to step over street urchins in the stairways or on the sidewalks while doing so seems ridiculous to me.  Add to that having to watch your back at all times to guard against those who would commit a "petty" crime against your person such as a mugging simply because you like you might be better off than others on the street.  It never made sense to me why you'd want to pay a premium for that dichotomous lifestyle.

 

Section 8 rentals have brought that same cavalier attitude about "low level crime" out to the burbs where many of us have chosen to live in an effort to avoid that environment in the first place.  It's not pretty!  I encourage anyone to search on Section 8 rental subsidy in the suburbs and quality of life issues.  What you find may change your view. My   observations about my own community of residence as well as my mention of the Alameda County Sheriffs Deputy's story I shared may be anectdotal but, there is a broader body of evidence out there that supports the theories espoused in relation to the failurs of the Section 8 program.  There are many stories across the country of relatively calm suburbs that found themselves immersed in big city crime when the number of Section 8 rentals began to grow and were subsequently rented to former residents of the inner cities where such crime was considered a normal part of life.

 

 

 

 

Trusted Contributor
ownerer
Posts: 178
Registered: ‎05-17-2011

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?

I call foul on these crime stats. There are 11 cities listed in the stats and they all vary greatly in makeup. Some are bedroom towns where nobody visits except to go home at night, some are cities with a big office presence (daytime population bigger than nighttime population), and one city in particular has a great nightlife / bar scene.

Nine of the ten other cities on the list would kill to have downtown Palo Alto in their own city. Yet it's a fact that downtown Palo Alto increases the crime rate. With bars come bar fights and drunk drivers. Almost everyone agrees that the benefits of an amazing downtown outweighs these negatives, but it doesn't show up in the stats. What would Palo Alto's stats look like if you excluded downtown? What would Sunnyvale's stats look like if you took 94087 only (mainly residential portion of Sunnyvale)?

The point is, you can't use city stats for evaluating crime. You need to look at crime rate in the neighborhood where you live, not the crime rate at the bar or office park a few miles away. Because of this fact, the stats are swayed in favor of boring bedroom communities that have no downtown and have no significant non-commercial business.

Contributor
annesmk
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎11-17-2010
0

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?

I'm seeing lots of misinformation here about section 8. Ive been a section 8 landlord for less than a year, in Berkeley. Section 8 is a federal program but it's always administered through a local agency. The tenant pays part of the rent and the local agency pays the rest directly to the landlord. I don't know the statistics but a large number of section 8 tenants are retirees living off of social security. If a section 8 tenant is dealing drugs, etc, they lose their subsidy, if the landlord cares enough to inform the agency. Section 8 also has anti-slumlord provisions, as the units have to be inspected yearly.
Platinum Super Contributor
buyinghouse
Posts: 5,879
Registered: ‎04-23-2011
0

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?


annesmk wrote:
I'm seeing lots of misinformation here about section 8. Ive been a section 8 landlord for less than a year, in Berkeley. Section 8 is a federal program but it's always administered through a local agency. The tenant pays part of the rent and the local agency pays the rest directly to the landlord. I don't know the statistics but a large number of section 8 tenants are retirees living off of social security. If a section 8 tenant is dealing drugs, etc, they lose their subsidy, if the landlord cares enough to inform the agency. Section 8 also has anti-slumlord provisions, as the units have to be inspected yearly.

  Very good information. Thanks!

Silver Regular Contributor
Dukey
Posts: 676
Registered: ‎07-08-2011

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?


ownerer wrote:

I call foul on these crime stats. There are 11 cities listed in the stats and they all vary greatly in makeup. Some are bedroom towns where nobody visits except to go home at night, some are cities with a big office presence (daytime population bigger than nighttime population), and one city in particular has a great nightlife / bar scene.

Nine of the ten other cities on the list would kill to have downtown Palo Alto in their own city. Yet it's a fact that downtown Palo Alto increases the crime rate. With bars come bar fights and drunk drivers. Almost everyone agrees that the benefits of an amazing downtown outweighs these negatives, but it doesn't show up in the stats. What would Palo Alto's stats look like if you excluded downtown? What would Sunnyvale's stats look like if you took 94087 only (mainly residential portion of Sunnyvale)?

The point is, you can't use city stats for evaluating crime. You need to look at crime rate in the neighborhood where you live, not the crime rate at the bar or office park a few miles away. Because of this fact, the stats are swayed in favor of boring bedroom communities that have no downtown and have no significant non-commercial business.


Gee trying to spin the facts or data on crimes on RBA-land?  Oh please...

Regular Contributor
BigManny
Posts: 105
Registered: ‎01-20-2010
0

Re: Low income housing - impact on Pleasanton real estates?

[ Edited ]

Dukey wrote:

ownerer wrote:

I call foul on these crime stats. There are 11 cities listed in the stats and they all vary greatly in makeup. Some are bedroom towns where nobody visits except to go home at night, some are cities with a big office presence (daytime population bigger than nighttime population), and one city in particular has a great nightlife / bar scene.

Nine of the ten other cities on the list would kill to have downtown Palo Alto in their own city. Yet it's a fact that downtown Palo Alto increases the crime rate. With bars come bar fights and drunk drivers. Almost everyone agrees that the benefits of an amazing downtown outweighs these negatives, but it doesn't show up in the stats. What would Palo Alto's stats look like if you excluded downtown? What would Sunnyvale's stats look like if you took 94087 only (mainly residential portion of Sunnyvale)?

The point is, you can't use city stats for evaluating crime. You need to look at crime rate in the neighborhood where you live, not the crime rate at the bar or office park a few miles away. Because of this fact, the stats are swayed in favor of boring bedroom communities that have no downtown and have no significant non-commercial business.


Gee trying to spin the facts or data on crimes on RBA-land?  Oh please...


Dukey, there is no point in reasoning with someone who cannot differentiate facts from opinions :smileywink: