The Denver Post filed a major feature yesterday from Flagler, Colorado (population 561) under the headline, "Colorado Divide: Why Some Coloradans Are Cashing Out of the Front Range and Seeking Their Happily-Ever-After." Here's an excerpt from the lengthy story, which focuses as much on lifestyle differences as on those about cost of living. Yet in its opening vignette, we get a sense of the dramatic cost differences between living in greater Denver and, in this case, the state's eastern plains:
Gail and Dennis Hendricks set out on a quest to find their future, and its rules were simple: Head east, out of the city, and stop at every town along Interstate 70.
It was in Flagler, about 120 miles from their home in Arvada, where they found the “adorable little community” they were searching for, a quaint and tiny town where “everybody’s lawns were mowed” and, more importantly, a place where they could afford to retire. The couple had only ever heard of Flagler from a TV weather report.
The Hendrickses found a “Closed for lunch” sign on the door of the real estate office on Main Street, but as they waited outside, they met a friendly Flagler resident who told them that if they were looking for a rental, they ought to ask for Marie inside the beauty shop. They soon found Marie and quickly agreed to rent a two-bedroom house with hardwood floors and a front porch for $500 per month.
In Arvada, the Hendrickses were paying $1,100 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in a complex with more than 60 units. Rent had recently gone up by $300. Also, Gail fought traffic for an hour twice a day to work in Lakewood, where she was a technician for an eye doctor.I wish the story had said more about the Hendricks' economic circumstances, like whether they were retiring on their Social Security or what other sources of income they might have.
Cross-Posted to Legal Ruralism
For all the reasons cities are great, much of that is due to their diversity, including economic diversity. Plus it's morally wrong to deprive the working class the ability to live in cities, where so many public benefits exist. Sure, not all members of the working class want to live in a city. But to price the poor out to where we can't see them or encounter them in any way is a major wrong in our society.
ReplyDeleteOne can only wonder what the long-term effects will be from the gentrification occurring in many large American cities.
The working class is increasingly being priced out of living in major cities but in most cases they must still work in these cities after moving out. The excerpt above highlights the case in Colorado, but we can also look closer to home in the Bay Area to see the same effect. The increased commuting time that workers must endure traveling to their jobs leaves many with less personal time. Personal time is essential for activities such as networking and continued education.
ReplyDeletethus by pricing the working class out of major cities we are also depriving them of the chance to achieve social mobility.
I agree with the two previous comments. On the one hand, pricing out working class individuals from cities does raise ethical considerations: Is pricing-out the working class from cities ethically permissible because it's a "natural" consequence of supply-demand capitalism? Or do cities owe a duty to their lower and working class residents to protect their housing rights? I favor the latter.
ReplyDeleteIn some cities there's an emergent "super commuting" working class. In San Francisco, for example, where it's nearly economically impossible for working class workers to live, many employees commute more than two hours per day, to-and-from work. (Link 1.) One has to wonder if this sustainable given the variety of functions working class members perform. Ever call medical personnel? Setting aside the added stress super commuters endure from their long commutes, there's also extensive economic waste. Two hours of commute time to-and-from work each day, five days per week, (at least) fifty weeks per year, add up to 500 hours of lost productivity per year at work or home. And let's not forget the added pollution from the long commutes, and resulting traffic jams. This model where cities must rely on super commuters just doesn't seem sustainable.
Moreover, recent college graduates in large cities should be socially conscious when planning for post-college life. Graduates from UC Berkeley, my alma mater, for example, are generally aware of the poor housing situation in the bay area. Yet, many opt to stay in the Berkeley-Oakland area post-graduation, thereby exacerbating the housing woes of the area's current working class residents.
It will be interesting to see if California voters approve the upcoming ballot measure "that would pave the way for cities to expand rent control" across the state. (Link 2.) I think the measure aligns well with my view that cities owe a duty to their lower and working class residents to protect their housing rights. And perhaps a state-wide measure will better mitigate the "welfare losses due to decreased housing supply" that occur when city-wide rent controls are imposed, as happened in San Francisco. (Link 3.)
Link1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BJ7VrStwl4; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3_jC_Oe8hQ
Link 2: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21742145-rent-control-sounds-appealing-counter-productive-faced-housing-crisis]
Link 3: http://conference.nber.org/confer//2017/PEf17/Diamond_McQuade_Qian.pdf