It’s 7 AM in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. I’m getting ready for school when my dad tells me classes are canceled again because of riots. People have flooded the streets, burning tires in protest of a government that has failed to meet their most basic needs. Growing up there, I often wondered why things never seemed to get better; why the suffering of the majority was always ignored.
When I moved back to the United States, the answer became painfully clear. The people protesting in Haiti didn’t have time to attend every city council meeting or organize political movements. Every hour of their day was spent finding food, clean water, or work. The people who did have time, the wealthier class known locally as the bourgeois, lived far from that reality. Their homes were tucked high in the hills behind gated walls, their businesses passed down through generations. Because their basic needs were secure, their advocacy focused on comfort and convenience. And because they had both money and influence, their priorities shaped government decisions, almost always at the expense of those struggling to survive.
I was shocked to discover that the same dynamic exists here in the United States. The faces and language are different, but the pattern is the same: those with the most time and money shape decisions to preserve their own comfort, not to meet the public’s needs. Residents may remember 2018, when homeowners packed a city council meeting to oppose a homeless housing project. As stories of human suffering were shared, the discussion kept returning to property values, noise, and fears about safety. Councilmembers initially expressed support, but ultimately voted the project down, telling the developer to “convince the neighbors first.” No minds were changed.
Now, years later, the same story is unfolding with a proposed condo development near Harbor and Hermosa. Despite California’s severe housing shortage, residents have flooded City Council inboxes with emails, treating new housing as an existential threat. They warn of traffic, parking, and “neighborhood character,” as if a few more families living nearby will upend their way of life. The project will likely move forward under the state’s builder’s remedy, a law designed precisely to overcome this kind of obstruction, but the outrage itself is telling. Even when change is inevitable, many still fight to preserve convenience over community.
The person working three jobs to feed their family doesn’t have time to monitor local politics. They have to trust that the “grown-ups”, those with time, influence, and authority, are acting in good faith. But too often, they aren’t. The grown-ups we’ve trusted have ignored the needs of the many for the comfort of the few. They rarely interact with the people they claim to represent, choosing instead to live apart from them, in neighborhoods where the biggest concerns are e-bikes on sidewalks or cars driving too loudly, while others struggle just to afford rent or buy groceries.
In Haiti, I watched society unravel as poverty deepened and tent cities spread. In 2021, years after I left, I heard that the president had been assassinated. His son had been my classmate and teammate on the basketball court. In all my years there, I had only heard good things about his father. After his death, the country descended further into chaos and, as always, the bourgeois fled, many to Miami, just as they did after the 2010 earthquake. I’ve often wondered: if they had spent their energy improving the lives of everyday Haitians instead of retreating into their enclaves, would things have turned out differently?
There’s nothing wrong with being a homeowner or wanting peace and order in your neighborhood. But there is something deeply wrong with ignoring the needs of your fellow human beings. A society that prioritizes comfort over compassion will always decay from within.
It’s time for us, the next generation, to stop waiting for the grown-ups to fix things. Give shelter to the homeless. Feed the hungry. Advocate for those who can’t. That’s how we make our cities and our world better.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Local News
This could not be better-said. This was a beautiful 2ay to describe the unfortunate situation we often see in the US in which homeowners put property values over their fellow human beings’ basic human need of housing.
Having bought at a lower price decades prior, and having enjoyed the benefits of property tax suppression via Prop 13, which then causes property tax revenue to fall short of the costs of the public amenities we all use – then lobbying against the creation of similar opportunities of financial stability and wealth generation for the next generation – is to pull up the ladder behind you.
Those homeowners have established home equity. They have enjoyed the benefits of property ownership. And yet they still want to determine whether future generations may be eligible for the same advantages, even as a crisis of humanity and homelessness grows larger and larger.
I understand the desire to protect one’s lifestyle, but certainly some concessions can be made in the name of human fellowship and compassion.
I agree excellent article. It is both awful and ridiculous to hear some people say that affordable housing could ruin their property value and bring low class people into the neighborhood.
But – Amy – I want to push back on a few points you make. I think you are focusing on the wrong culprits.
When the older folks you mention bought their homes wages were low and the price to buy a home still a challenge for most. Those who could took out loans from banks or family members and others had financing through the GI bill at the time which offered veterans good deals. Some others of course were wealthy – many through inheritance.
Prop 13 was passed to keep property tax increases low and was meant to keep older folks in their homes after retirement when they no longer had a steady income.
Unfortunately in both spaces – corporate players became involved. Walmart’s properties, for instance, are on Prop 13.
So reform is needed to get corporations off the Prop 13 rolls and rent control also needs to be put in place. Perhaps an end to corporate ownership of residential property would be good.
For many years now venture capitalists are and have been buying up residential properties , multi family complexes, trailer parks, etc as investments and increasing the rents.
In our neighborhood we get little notices about cash buy-outs for our home.
One down the street took the offer and the house rents for an obscene amount.
Hi Sharon, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Prop 13 was advertised as ‘keeping Grandma in her home’ but this thought process unfortunately has led to many unintended consequences, including aging homeowners staying in and occupying their homes instead of downsizing and allowing larger families to move in. They are locked into larger properties because they can’t afford the taxes on a new property, nor can they afford the high prices that their opposition to building new housing has created by restricting supply.
Those who oppose new housing simultaneously seem entitled to only ever see their property values rise while their property taxes remain essentially flat, out of step with the rising costs of public amenities they enjoy.
Corporate ownership of homes does not seem to be a major issue – only 2% of homes in CA are owned by large corporation, per CalMatters.
I do agree that VC/PE are acting with unabashed greed and malice in the realm of mobile home parks, taking advantage of seniors and other vulnerable populations.
I am not advocating for suddenly removing Prop 13 protections, which would have devastating consequences and leave a lot of seniors unable to afford their new assessments.
However, I do push back against our leaders’ tradition of capitulation to homeowners who feel entitled to control whether housing gets built in their neighborhoods. I believe we need to end the American mentality of housing as an investment, and instead recognize it as the human right it is.
And I do believe in humane Prop 13 reform simultaneously with significantly expanding housing access.
Amy – thanks for your comment. I agree expanding housing and humane prop 13 reform would help and I would like to add rent control and some kind of ban on home buying for investment purposes too.
I think we agree everyone should be able to have a decent affordable home whether they want to rent or buy.
One thing about the CalMatters study – – that 2% investor figure is from a study originally done in 2017. Was that data collected on the percentage of housing bought each year by investors or was it the number of investors vs individuals buying housing? For instance in the same study the 2012 percentage was 7%. Looks like more investor activity in the last several years according to some real estate sources.
If those percentages reflect the number of homes purchased they are cumulative. That would reduce housing for individuals looking to buy, and also be bad for renters as corporate model is to make a profit.
Also that study was only for California. It is much worse in other states. And it is worse for multi- family complexes and trailer parks everywhere.
Property taxes are effectively progressively apportioned “wealth taxes” we use to fund shared community services.
So if a lot of people are paying radically less based on age, then either the community is starved for funds for services or the costs are shifted to younger homeowners.
Somebody has to pay. They (younger homeowners) literally pay higher taxes, or they pay because they buy in a market with higher prices due to artificially reduced supply, or we all pay the cost of putting up with reduced service levels. And some people “pay” in not being able to afford to become homeowners at all.
Maybe that’s best, that people can age in giant properties at a cut rate. And that people are insulated from the shock of market value fluctuations is a benefit. I guess as one gets older maybe one could make an argument for relying less on shared services. But aside from not having one’s own children in school, kind of hard to buy.
As to the corporate angle that should be reformed. It’s only hard because the big boys are always ready to dump money into politics to protect that benefit.
But we should all be honest about the cost shift. It’s real.
John – I agree it is terrible that younger people who are able to buy a home have to pay so much in property tax.
But, I also see merit in Prop 13 protections for elderly people who would be unable to keep their homes if their property taxes exceed their retirement income. There must be a way to restructure that so that the protection is there for that group.
Also if there was a way to move out of your larger home into a smaller home, if you no longer need the space, without penalty of increasing your property tax, maybe more would do that. Some jurisdictions allow Prop 13 to follow an elderly person downsizing and some don’t.
In our neighborhood we have a home that has been vacant for over 30 years because the owner who lives elsewhere doesn’t want to live in it or sell it. So it just crumbles away.
But – every week we get a postcard or letter from a corporate group offering us cash for our house – no inspection – etc. so corporate players are out there and looking to profit from buying up homes. I think that model is a real part of the problem as well as corporate access to Prop 13 which should only be for lower income population.
This reminds me of my multi-millionaire friend who takes Social Security even though she does not need it. There should be some income test for these programs that are much needed by some and not needed by others.
I don’t think most elderly people on Prop 13 are the major problem though corporate class would like to frame it that way.