Eaglewings
Platinum Member
Okay....Nobody thinks the folks living in S.F. aren't financially comfortable. What I'm looking for is someone who's going to explain and demonstrate, credibly, not just anecdotally, that:
I live in D.C. and it's quite similar in many ways to S.F. It's small, having a population well below 1M and it's geographically small. Poor to average income folks quite often move out because it's too expensive to live in the city. Like S.F., citations/measures of median income are practically meaningless because unless one is in one of the few areas in the city where modest income folks are clustered together in units in multiunit buildings, there simply is nobody living in the city who is not at least an upper middle income earner/wealth holder. It may or may not be as expensive as S.F., but whether it is or not is irrelevant because it's expensive enough.
- The wealth/income status of existing S.F. residents has something to do with why Syrian refugees have not been settled there.
Like S.F., I don't think there are any Syrian refugees that have been settled in D.C. proper. That's not surprising to me. Where the heck would they be placed in D.C? Think about it. Assume a Syrian refugee family of four.
Now some folks may say "put them in the slums." Well, one can say that, one may even do it. The reality is that doing so just doesn't work. Other requirements, most notably transportation, and that's before even considering the safety factors. One has to be realistic. It's preposterous to think that one can plop a family of refugees into the most dangerous but also most affordable parts of a locality and think they won't be viewed as easy marks. There's no point in accepting them as refugees if they are going to get killed by the naer do wells here rather than by the ones where they came from.
- What sort of residence must they be placed in? A two or three bedroom dwelling.
- What will that cost in any part of the city other than what is literally the slums? Assuming there is a vacant unit they can be placed in**, it'll cost about $3K -$4K per month in the city.
Look at that map and notice that it displays one-bedroom median prices. My family's business is rental real estate development and management, and based on our own occupancy rates, I can tell you for sure that the availability of two and three bedroom rental units is essentially zero. We've had none available for decades; on the rare occasion that someone moves out, it's re-rented before they've even left. We barely have time to clean and repaint the unit.
It appears from the map I posted that shows where Syrian refugees have been settled some of them are in NYC. I doubt that many, if any, of them have been placed in Manhattan for exactly the same reason. It's just too expensive. Now if they happen to have a relative there who has room to take them in, well, that, like your son living with you, is a different matter.
Speaking of our kids, your son and my three....Would you encourage your son to live on his own -- meaning using his own resources, not subsidized by yours or his mother's -- in S.F? I know I wouldn't unless they happen to find a "share" situation that allows them to afford it. My own kids know damn well that it's too expensive for them to live in D.C. without some sort of arrangement that subsidizes the cost. That's all well and good, but a family of refugees isn't, for the most part, going to have any subsidy that results in lowering the cost of housing for the organizations that must pay for it for them. So basically, that means to house a refugee in S.F., D.C., Manhattan or any other pricey place, you, I and other taxpayers must foot that bill.
Now I don't mind being humanitarian enough to help them out by allowing some of my tax dollars to go to supporting them in a working class or lower middle class area where there's some good reason for them to be settled there, but I would not at all be keen about doing the same to put them into any of the most expensive places one can live in the U.S. That has nothing to do with how rich the residents of the place are. It's all about just not paying more than is really necessary and reasonable given the non-direct-cost factors that must be considered and accommodated.
Although I believe that your city is very expensive to live like most cities are now..but the difference is...Its $4-$7.000...It is much higher that this today.. These are not millionaires, they are over nigh MEGA Billionaires..Right now it is the richest city in country..
I want to rent a hi-rise apt just to live for a year...now that will never happen $8 -$11.000 month for the apt. I would like..
No teachers, housekeepers , store owners , ect can not afford to live there..
This is already happening in my town Los Gatos.....Mega Rich are buying up the land..I am going to make out like a bandit, but we may just rent out our home..My neightbor is getting %7.000 a month for her's....
Last edited:
