NIMBY proposes using disabled people as a shield against the "poor”

Originally published at: NIMBY proposes using disabled people as a shield against the "poor" | Boing Boing


Hillsborough is known for controversy


People with Physical Disabilities don’t commit crime?! That flies in the face of everything I have learned from watching James Bond films!

Please, James Bond, stop with that ableist bullshit.


That is excellent. What are the locals taking exception to; the rainbow?


Disabled people have enough income issues to handle without adding attitudes/plans like this to the pile:


People with disabilities absolutely, 100% need more housing. Dedicated housing, when set up and staffed properly, can be an absolute boon to them and their community.

Those true facts do not take away from the fact that poor people who do not have disabilities are also human and very much need housing. And kettling them all into one place (i.e. anywhere by MY neighbourhood) is a proven recipe for disaster.


This is a pretty good look at what’s going on with the housing plans:


“But as the father of a special needs son … the very low- and low-income [housing units], a lot of those can be used up here by providing special needs housing for people here.”

How magnanimous of him!

This is a classic NIMBY move: he’s willing to allow certain kinds of affordable housing if it benefits him and his family personally.

See also Boomer NIMBYs finally giving in on allowing auxiliary dwelling units in California after decades of resistance. They changed their tune only after they realised that their children were moving far away due to housing affordability (caused by their selfishness) right when they needed them close by to look after them in their old age. Suddenly the AUDs weren’t “adversely affecting the character of the neighbourhood” after all. Suddenly there was new low-cost (often free!) housing appearing in the NIMBYs’ actual back yards.


As a side note, thanks for that little dose of George, man do I miss his comedy…

1 Like

So many good points already made, so I’ll just add this one detail:

Even if a particular person with disabilities doesn’t drive, all their support team (nurses, therapists, etc.) do. Creating housing in California without parking facilities will not serve the demographic he’s supposedly trying to support.


Hillsborough being an upscale Bay Area suburb, we can safely assume that getting to and from work there by public transit from a more affordable area takes more than an hour each way, involving at least one transfer and probably the kind of local bus service that (if it exists at all) involves 30-minute-plus schedules and long walks from the stop.


Not to worry, the exhaustion probably just helps keep the service-poors docile.


Unconventional buildings in unconventional colors that - worse! - can be seen from the highway, giving the false impression to passers-by that the town is unconventional and artsy! The town is otherwise a combo of old, extremely expensive mansions and more modern McMansions. (It’s the kind of place that has $35 million properties, where a Hearst built a replica of the White House, and where Musk used to have a mansion. I.e. tacky, but tacky in an extremely rich person kind of way.)


I’m guessing if special needs housing serving low income adults were located in his neighborhood, he’d suddenly find reasons it could be problematic.


I was also startled to see in the article @lastchance posted, how low income housing requirements quickly led to high-density housing units. That tends to be a problem for people with mobility issues, too. In my area, there have been incidents in 55+ communities with a single elevator - and the residents were screwed for months when it had a mechanical failure.

We’ve already seen the problems that occur during emergencies like a fire or earthquake when hundreds of people live in a single building. Hopefully, there will be more pushback against that. We also have developers taking advantage of limited scope for ADA compliance, and residents are the ones who suffer as a result.


I say people need to freak out a bit more.

Building affordable housing need not be a barrier to building housing for people with physical and developmental challenges.

Also, pbbbt. Because people who earn lots of money don’t do drugs, domestic violence, DUI, other forms of crime? Well, they do evade taxes better than the poors.


Decreased property values! :scream:


I’m still trying to wrap my head around a family of 6 being low income if they make 87.000 dollars a year.

Depending on where you live, that wouldn’t even cover rent on a 3-bedroom apartment.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.