http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEACHERS_HOUSING_SHORTAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-02-13-23-57



The studio apartment Jiménez rents for $1,783 a month, or 43 percent of her salary, is located in one of San Francisco's sketchiest neighborhoods. Getting home involves running a gauntlet of feces-strewn sidewalks, popping crack pipes, discarded needles and menacing comments - daily irritants that become more daunting after dark.

Doesn't her husband have a decent job?

If the Liberals really cared they would do their part by charging less rent.  But since they don't want to suffer the loss of pay the'll demand government does something about it with other people's money.

where does it say she is married?
does everyone have to be married to afford housing?

ar-jedi

My town has done this for 60 years. They moved in a dozen houses from a Japanese internment camp and they always charge teachers 200 less than anyone else and would fill any left over at market rate.

I think the last few years no teachers really lived there so they just rent them out.

Teachers start at 40k per year here, pretty good for a seasonal job in a rural town. An older 2500 square foot home in good shape can be bought for 50 to 80k.

Where is your husband?

https://youtu.be/ST0cR2-JcZ0

Why not pay STEM teachers more and Art teachers less? Might be a start.

The schoolmarm used to live in the schoolhouse in a room behind the blackboard. What's old is new again.

This issue isn't housing.  It is that the housing she choses to pay for is in a crime ridden neighborhood. Clean up the crime and improve the neighborhood

I work in healthcare.....Obama is destroying That!!!
The only ones making more $$$ are MDs and healthcare executives!
When the city wants to subsidize MY housing......I'll consider the teachers!
FBHO!!!.......and ANY teacher who voted for him!!!

That's completely racist

If you cannot afford to live in the town where you have a job then perhaps you need to find employment in another city of state.

No one cares when old people can not longer afford the never ending property taxes and they have to leave the life they created.

Mom, Grandma, and Great-grandma were all teachers in rural one-room settings at some point in their careers.  

Most of the time their contracts were for very little money, but they had room and board provided. This included housing in some local's spare bedroom. Breakfast was provided at the boarding house with the family host. Lunch was rotated among the students' families. Every day a different student brought two lunches, the extra for teacher.   Dinners were either at the boarding house or the treat of a different family.

The catch to all of this was rural northeastern Missouri in the wider depression era, both pre and post, was all the same economic state. They didn't know a depression was going on because they were already in poverty and never came out of it.  When my mom started teaching in these places in the late 1950s it was still like Laura Ingalls Wilder had just left the farm.

She said she provided her own lunches and dinners despite the contract because the families were too poor to feed themselves most of the time.

My mom had a masters degree.
Grandma had a bachelors, and eventually got some additional Special Ed certification once she joined the modern era.
Great-grandma only finished high school and was thought of as a very educated lady when she was 16.

I found some of my mom's old school papers from when she was in jr. high. For a 1940s community with only about 30 students from K-12 they sure had a strong focus on the STEM subjects. Of course the questions were heavily biased towards practical farming knowledge. That's not a problem IMO, but a feature.

My current local school district still "owns" the land and buildings for a couple one room schoolhouses around the county.  There was a building and land for every 36 square miles. So about 6-8 for the old district. One of the schoolhouses is still a schoolhouse, but it's been leased to 4H in perpetuity who have subleased it to the local Ham radio club on a $1/99 year deal.  That's the Indian Prairie School. Also have Liberty School Rd with an old building on it, and Bend School Rd. with the building a shambles. Those two are privately owned at this point. Other roads in the area are Oak Hill School Rd., Star School Rd., and Cherry School Rd. that only the names remain.

TL;DR  times change.

LOL, what happens to rent when the neighborhood improves?

boom.gif

ar-jedi

I think the Seattle situation was bullshit.  I was a teacher there and lived on Queen Anne (a block away from the overlook where you always see the iconic Space Needle and cityscape shot).  Sure housing was more than living in Duval or Burien but it was worth not having to deal with the commute.  

Just like everything else, you have to make sacrifices to live where you want to.  Want space?  I've in the country.  Want to live the city life?  A condo/apartment is in your future.  Want a little of both?  Suburbs and HoA are most likely is what you are going to be dealing with.

If they offer it, you can't blame teachers for taking up the offer.

Given the state of public education these days, it's no surprise the value of her labor is practically worthless.

Seems like you could make $40k teaching in a small to medium Midwestern town. With a decent house in a decent neighborhood with a decent commute being well affordable at $40k.

San Fran is nuts. $100k out there is "the minumum".

It's really not just an urban issue. It's also a rural issue too. Last year I was teaching in a very small, rural community. My position was one year with the potential to turn into something more permenant depending on (other staffing considerations). I was driving halfway across Connecticut each way. Were I to get hired to stay permanently, I would have relocated. Most of the nearby places that I could afford were about a half hour away (given road conditions in that part of the state, such a commute would have been almost as ridiculous as driving across the state). The rentals in town (or in adjacent communities, unless I moved to Mass- the prices there were substantially less, just over the state/town line) were mostly out of my price range- most would have been in the ballpark of 60%+ of my take home pay, before utilities. One or two of would have been about half with utilities. There was perhaps one available rental that I would have actually been able to afford. Town demographics were an odd split of very wealthy and very poor. It was explainable how some families could afford to live there (homes that had been in the family for generations, fortuitous deals on real estate, etc...) but I always questioned how some of the families were able to do something as simple as find a place or pay the rent.

I live in an ultra affordable apartment in an urban community. I get a really good deal from a private landlord and have gas heat which is affordable. I drive about 10 miles (35 min in/ 45 min home). I would love to live in a closer, suburban community- but that would be stretching affordability an up my expenses a lot. An apartment smaller than mine would cost me an extra $500 to $700 per month.

This has been going on for many years already.

I guess I don't understand why they'd bother with subsidized housing. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just increase the pay in an effort to attract more talent, and let things work themselves out?

I have to believe that taking the money you would otherwise use for subsidised housing would be better spent just tacked on to a paycheck. Less hassle, less bureaucracy, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, the doctors are making more because people have shittier insurance.

Some body in the city government probably will make money off the housing idea. That's the only thing I can think of.

Can't have any gentrification going on. That would drive poor people out by raising property values and then property taxes. Gentrification is racist.

Would probably distort Union-negotiated pay tiers

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

They  have been trying this for years with police and firemen. It's always a horrible failure since no one wants to live in a violent cesspool.

The reason they do it this way is different budgets. The housing subsidies don't come out of the school district like a wage hike would.

Most public education will be privatized soon..... and in will step Bill gates and his group of merry miscreants with a convieniently prepacked deal  ready to fucking eat..... and the idiot masses will cheer for capitalism...for it has saved the day once more.

I would suspect they would take the money and commute from a better city.



 

Even if they did, that still solves the problem, doesn't it?

yeah, you are missing the fact its san fran

After the 89 earthquake it became public knowledge that the majority of SFPD and SFFD lived about 45 minutes away in Sonoma county. It became a problem when they tried to call them all in and they couldn't get there due to bridge closures. Some firemen were not even living in the state! Due to shift swapping they were able to work 3 or 4 shifts and then fly home to Utah for 2 weeks.



 

I don't know. I think the lefties would feel better if the teachers lived in the city they teach for some reason.



 

Shared cultural richness and vibrancy and all that.

Personally, I think its more important to have cops and firemen living in the city they work.



 

delete.

I'm not inclined to support policies like that, but I at least understand the arguments in favor of it.

For teachers though? Eh, not so much.

I would think that a teacher would prefer to live in SF (I know I would), rather than endure that shitty commute into the city each morning...assuming they could afford it, anyway.

When I worked for the City and County back in 2000-2001, I would have definitely preferred to live in the city. I couldn't afford it, without taking a HUGE step backwards in lifestyle (I was starting a family).

A lot of people I worked with lived in south city, but even that was expensive as fuck.

Unless they get ride of Section 8 they wont improve,  you think the hoodrats are paying 1700 a month rent?

 

Cities have an incentive for their employees to live within the city. The "Copper Canyon" neighborhoods in Detroit were always very nice, affordable places to live. As soon as the law changed allowing cops and firefighters to live outside the city, those areas went down hill.

Free-market lesson 1

IF it's so bad, then no one would take the job, forcing the city to raise wages to fill positions.  

IF you are a teacher, and feel it's so bad, get a job in another city.  

No protest necessary.

I don't know why the hell we pay out teachers peanuts and then spend millions and millions on the school itself and then expect our kids to learn better....

If it were up to me teachers would be paid far far better to create a demand and a much more competitive environment for highly coveted positions with a high performance expectations. Teachers that don't cut it get replaced... But that's not how it works.

That would reduce the pay of the administrators who don't actually teach.

An even more cynical theory is that by paying X where X + Y is required to meet cost of living the teachers become dependent on left wing policies to survive and thus are even more likely to become reliable indoctrinators of young minds.