NIMBY and YIMBY

Last night, my Home Owners Association (HOA) announced on their (closed group) Facebook page that there was a meeting at the local high school about a proposed affordable housing project.  The announcement was framed clearly:  "For those who oppose this project...".

Not surprisingly, there is a group of neighbors who have formed an organization to protest this (and other) low-income housing developments in our area.

The Executive Director of the local St. Vincent de Paul, -- one of the partners in this project -- wrote this editorial in the local paper as an attempt to allay people's fears about a relatively large low-income housing development in their area.

Before I lose myself in a discussion of thinly disguised classism, racism and unfounded fears, let me say that I *do* agree the proposed development is rather large (perhaps TOO large) and that it does appear to violate several of the City's Housing Dispersal Policy objectives and goals (one being that no low-income development should have more than 60 units; this proposed one has 101 and there are other projects proposed to go in next to it, meaning that, in the end, the developers could end up locating a majority of the city's poor all in one place).

The Housing Dispersal Policy was written in 1996 and, well, lots of things have changed since then.  It is particularly notable that the policy was based on *1980* Census data -- we're 32 years past that!

While I'm twitchy about a really large low-income housing development *anywhere* in the city -- and particularly since there is more than one planned for the same area -- I fully realize that the demand and need for subsidized housing far outstrips the availability.

I know this not just from statistics like the ones cited in the above editorial, but also from my own friends who struggle to make ends meet.  I recently tried to help a friend find a one-bedroom apartment, with utilities, in  a safe neighborhood, for less than what she is paying now.  We searched and searched and couldn't find one.  She makes "too much" to qualify for any government program -- meaning she likely wouldn't be able to live in this proposed development -- yet she is spending far more than 50% of her income on her rent.

It shouldn't be that way, folks.  She works.  (Like lots of other struggling people!)  She attempts to play by the rules (like lots of other struggling people!).  And she cannot make it without help; when she cannot find it through agencies (which is common, given her "high" income), she has to either earn money under the table or ask friends for help (like us).

There is no doubt in my mind that Eugene needs more affordable housing, that Eugene (like cities everywhere) largely lacks a living wage, and that this vacant lot near where I live is one of the rare ones in the city.  Our neighborhood has the *space* to build this development, whereas most areas of the city do not.

It's also true that there are also other low-income housing developments already on our side of town, so it's not (as some comments on  articles have erroneously claimed) that "all" the people over "there" (here) are "elitist snobs" or "against poor people".  There is, in fact, quite a range of incomes and housing types and options in our neck of the woods -- mansions and large houses next to or near ranch-style homes, small one-story homes, older two-story homes, condos, apartments and rented houses and affordable housing developments.  

Not everyone who opposes the development opposes low-income housing per se.  Many people who oppose this project oppose it on several valid claims:  that it violates the City's (perhaps outdated and still unexplained) no-more-than-60-units rule; it consolidates the poor in one location (ironically far away from where services are located); it potentially adds a LOT more traffic to the area; it potentially adds many students to our already overcrowded schools.  In other words, these concerned citizens might get behind a smaller (60-unit) project, one which puts less stress on already stressed systems (particularly schools).

Others contend that adding students to our schools might be a good thing -- more students bring more money to the schools and *may* make classes *smaller* because, if enough students enroll, schools have to hire more teachers.  This is a theoretical claim that has yet to be proven.  With parents and students and teachers reeling from the effects of our last round of budget cuts (which included closing several schools), few think that the potential addition of hundreds of kids to our neighborhood would uniformly result in many more teachers being hired.  At the very least, it seems likely that class sizes *would* increase, particularly for older students.  But class sizes are already too large -- 39-42 in middle school classes and, depending on the subject, 40-50 per high school class.  As a parent of two kids still in public schools, I share this concern that our local schools -- like schools throughout the city -- are already stressed beyond capacity.

The questions that I have about the development have not been answered anywhere (at least not in articles I've found).

1)  How many people in Eugene currently qualify for low-income housing *and cannot find it in Eugene*?  In other words, are ALL low-income housing units in Eugene currently occupied?  Or do we have some vacant ones?  What *exactly* is the need?

2)  If the need is, indeed, 101 or more units, can we build several smaller housing projects throughout the city, rather than all 101 (or more) in one place?



Simply building more low-income housing *which residents have to pay for* may not solve enough of their problems if *they actually can't find a job to begin with* or cannot afford childcare so they can work in order to afford their housing.  If they don't work, they have no income.  If they have no income, they cannot pay for the housing...  If they have no childcare, they cannot work.

It's all connected, people.

Many years ago, when I was working at Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP), I did research on programs for at-risk families.  In a nutshell, HFRP consistently finds that the best programs -- the ones with the best outcomes for kids and their parents -- co-locate services at one place.

I strongly believe that this housing development should really be far more than just a housing development if we are at all committed to doing something to help people.  But I would argue that it should be on the smaller side (in part because, if successful, one would want to replicate it elsewhere).  This development shouldn't be about making money for the *developer* but about serving people.

A doctor, a dentist, and an eye doctor (who accept the Oregon Health Plan, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) should have office space on site.   There should be on-site, affordable childcare center (for residents only).  A preschool (perhaps Head Start) should be there, too.  Buses should be plentiful (this, ironically, may be the easiest thing to do -- get a few more LTD buses to the area).

While we're at it, the neighborhood as a whole has been complaining for YEARS that it doesn't have a grocery store.  There's been talk of building a Market of Choice nearby -- but that market, as local and lovely as it is, does NOT serve the needs of the poor.   What grocery store -- not gigantic, but decent-sized -- can we bring to the neighborhood, that could be within walking distance of the development?

We live in a community -- with problems like all communities.  But the NOT IN MY BACKYARD APPROACH doesn't build communities; it erodes them.  At the same time, lack of careful consideration of the complex problems that ALL families have (but which affect poor families more) could easily result in a project that nobody likes -- including those who would qualify to live there.

Bottom line:  I'm not against building affordable housing in my community, but if we do so, we have to be committed to establishing the services (including grocery stores, child care, and schools) that would be required to make this housing development a successful community.

Housing, in and of itself, doesn't do that.

I'll be at the next meeting, proposing something far more ambitious than just housing.  YIMBY -- Yes, in my back yard!

Why We Bailed on Public High School: The "Good" Eugene Public School System is More Broken Than You Think

(Continued from previous post, "Relentlessly Positive")  
     My daughter was, eventually, after several emails, put into a Geometry class.  But doing so required that she give up her two electives and be given "soccer" as an elective, even though *she played for the high school soccer team itself*.    What an inane option.
     She was told the only other option was "free period" (83 minutes of free time), and that she'd already have to have a free first period all second term because there were *no* electives available that term at all.
     She reminded them that she already had a free fourth period every other day -- a result of the school district quietly changing the International High School system over the summer, when none of us parents were paying attention.  (The IHS program described to us last year in orientation was a four-credits-a-year program in addition to their core courses (math, language, science); now IHS only gives students three credits per year and, due to doing away with the "Projects" component for freshman and sophomores, every other day both first and second year IHS students have "free time".)  
     When she came home and told me how her schedule was "fixed," I went ballistic.  Not only had she lost electives she was excited about, but now her *only* elective was doing 83 additional minutes of soccer when she'd already be practicing 120 minutes each day after school.  And these free periods are not, IMHO, good for young high school students.
     I'm sorry, but only the most unusually mature and self-controlled and self-motivated fourteen-year-olds could possibly manage that much free time effectively.  Most, on an open campus, will be at Safeway or Market of Choice or McDonald's or Subway or Dairy Queen or Ron's Hawaiian Grill or Taco Bell or the coffee shop.  Loitering.  Or eating junk food.  
     Which, if you go shopping during the day in the little mall across from the high school, you will find to be true.  Every establishment is positively crawling with high school students with far too much free time.   Not that they all could fit in the library at once, either; I'm not blaming *them* --  only the system that ruins them.
    I was prepared to have my daughter have some free time either junior or senior year, for I already knew that the high school had some scheduling difficulties.  I was told by other parents of older high school kids that "if you go in there and fight each term you can get what your student needs".  So, I was prepared to "fight".  But not for "free time" or extra soccer as the only "options" for an ambitious college-bound first-year high school kid.
     The next day, I went to see the guidance counselor again, rather effectively (to my perception at least) suppressing my rage.  He tried to find some electives for her, calling the scheduler in front of me and asking "Please tell me what free classes there are first period -- ANY free classes."
     He was told "Soccer" and "Conditioning" or "free period".


     How, I asked, does the high school intend to prepare kids for college with this kind of schedule -- blocks of free time, often more than one a day, every week?  And with only three courses per term, how do the kids get enough credits for college?  How do they get the courses they need?


     "Ah!  I understand your frustration with the system.  But see, the aim of public high     school is not to prepare kids for college.  It's to get them an Oregon high school diploma, which is 24 credits.  If we give them three courses a term, four terms a year, after four years they will graduate.  Many of our best students have to take courses at X Community College or X University during their junior and senior year in order to get credits needed in order to apply for college."  


     To a certain extent, what the guidance counselor told me is true.  I also think he is in an impossible position and should not be in "trouble" for telling it like it is.  Public high schools don't have to promise to prepare your kid for college, they have to promise to give your kid a high school diploma recognized by your state.
     But, GOOD high schools have always had clear *and available* college prep programs for students interested in them.  To be perfectly honest, I went to a pretty darn average high school (at least according to rankings of Portland area high schools in the 1980s), but there was a clear way for any student who wanted to be prepared for college to do so.  In contrast, the high school my daughter was going to attend was rated by Newsweek last year as the second best public high school in Oregon.   

     On paper, this public high school looks good -- very good, in fact.  But when a guidance counselor has to tell a rightfully concerned parent that if he or she wishes his or her child to be able to apply to "good" colleges that that child is going to have to take classes outside of the high school itself, the guidance counselor is admitting that the system of "excellent public education" is broken.  Completely.
     I came home and thought about options for all of five minutes.  I called the local private Catholic college prep school.  I toured it that day (Friday) and set up an opportunity for my daughter to shadow another student on Monday.  We made the decision Monday afternoon and  Tuesday (yesterday) she began classes.

     The one bummer is that she can only practice this year with the team, not play.  OSAA regulations prevent a student from moving from one school to another (even for academic reasons) and playing for the second school if said student has already played for the first one.  We're seeing if an exception could be made, but we're not counting on it.  Of course, even if we had known about all this when the key deadline passed (August 22), we wouldn't have, at the time, thought the deadline had anything to do with us.


    We were about to send our kid to the second best public high school in Oregon.  Why would we worry about possibly screwing up her soccer playing chances at another high school in the same city?


    Still, the kids on the team welcomed her to their practice yesterday.  All the teachers, the students and the administrators have been warm and welcoming.  Classes are small.  There's no open campus.  Rules are relatively strict (but fair).  
    She's safe, busy and supervised.  She's going to get a good -- no, EXCELLENT -- high school education.
    Never thought I would say that I left public schools.  My other two are still in them (one in first grade; one in sixth).  
    But we truly feel we had no choice.  We hope the economy recovers, that the district can rehire teachers and make class sizes manageable again and be able to offer enough courses for all students.  Perhaps one day there will be enough money to build an additional high school to accommodate kids more easily -- you know, keep them ALL in classes in the high school itself, appropriate to their ability and to their aspirations, ALL day long.


     What a concept.


     But until that happens, private high school it is.