Oakland Warehouse Fire

[Steve of phpBB]

I am seeing very little of this on my Twitter feed (my main source of news), except for one writer from the East Bay Times, and I haven't seen it mentioned here, but apparently at least 36 people died in a warehouse fire in Oakland over the weekend.

WTF? Thirty-six dead in a fire? What century is this?

And why isn't this a bigger story? Is it because the victims are all, um, "thugs"?

[degenerasian]

Victims are white no one cares

[howard]

Well, technically hippies I think. 'Artist collective', electronic music party. Yep, hippies. (one kid, age 17, was son of a County Sheriff officer.)

Big in the local papers and LA Times, but news coverage does seem a bit muted kinda weird. Prob Thump's fault, if not putin.

[A_B]

Bunch of shirtwaists.

[sancarlos]

It's a huge story here on our local tv news and in the local papers. Very sad. And, now of course they are looking for a scapegoat. Pointing the finger most prominently at the main tenant of the "collective" Nothing was up to code, no permits for the big party, many people living in a space not zoned for residential... But the thing is, apparently, the neighbors had complained about the place (mainly noise) multiple times, and officials had come by to investigate. But, nothing happened and nobody was cited. So, the city administration should also look in the mirror as they assign blame.

[Johnnie]

Ravers be ravin'.

But this is incredibly sad.

There was also a 10 alarm fire in Cambridge, MA the other day too. Visions of the Dorchester fire nearly 2 decades ago flashed in my mind.

[Steve of phpBB]

Bunch of shirtwaists.

That's what it sounded like to me.

[bapo!]

And why isn't this a bigger story?

This has been the top story in my usual news sources, but maybe it seems smaller because there are no secondary stories. We can't tie it into a larger narrative. There's no terrorism, nobody to blame, so we can't say much more than, It sucks. I hate it, and these are the stories that make me depressed, but it's hard to have a conversation about it.

[Joe K]

It's a huge story here on our local tv news and in the local papers. Very sad. And, now of course they are looking for a scapegoat. Pointing the finger most prominently at the main tenant of the "collective" Nothing was up to code, no permits for the big party, many people living in a space not zoned for residential... But the thing is, apparently, the neighbors had complained about the place (mainly noise) multiple times, and officials had come by to investigate. But, nothing happened and nobody was cited. So, the city administration should also look in the mirror as they assign blame.

I read an interesting and important detail in a NY Times article about the fire, which is that the cost of living has gotten so exorbitant in the Bay Area (including Oakland), that illegal housing arrangements like this where nothing is up to code are becoming increasingly common. If so, that should be a huge part of the story here. It's unacceptable for such a major metropolitan area to do such a poor job of providing affordable housing that people need to live in unsafe and hazardous conditions. Obviously this fire is just about the worst case scenario for what can happen, but still it will hopefully be a wakeup call.

[Rex]

I'm not sure I understand why it matters that people lived in there when the fire supposedly happened during a party. Perhaps there are other ways in which this was illegal and dangerous, but I don't think the fact that some people slept there the night before is one of them.

[tennbengal]

Rex - need to read a bit more, I think - but from what I understand since people were basically squatting in there, it was a tent city, labyrinth of sheets as walls etc. The "staircase" to the second floor was in part, packing crates. Whole thing was a tinderbox, no lights, no exits marked, it wasn't suitable for anyone to live in it. That's what I am gathering from what I have read. So, they have a party/rave/whatever, there's 100 people there, and when the fire starts, the place goes up immediately and it's impossible to figure out how to get out through the weird living set-up etc.

[Joe K]

Rex - need to read a bit more, I think - but from what I understand since people were basically squatting in there, it was a tent city, labyrinth of sheets as walls etc. The "staircase" to the second floor was in part, packing crates. Whole thing was a tinderbox, no lights, no exits marked, it wasn't suitable for anyone to live in it. That's what I am gathering from what I have read. So, they have a party/rave/whatever, there's 100 people there, and when the fire starts, the place goes up immediately and it's impossible to figure out how to get out through the weird living set-up etc.

This is consistent with my understanding from what I've read. Last I saw it was also unclear that the fire was caused by anything that occurred at the party, as authorities though it could've been an electrical fire caused by one of the resident's appliances.

When I lived in Boston, I lived in an old factory building that had properly converted to apartments. There were things like fire alarms, sprinklers, plentiful windows and well-lit exits, all of which would've greatly reduced the risk to residents if one of my neighbors threw a big party and something caught fire. My understanding is that none of those safety measures were present in Oakland.

[EnochRoot]

I'm not sure I understand why it matters that people lived in there when the fire supposedly happened during a party. Perhaps there are other ways in which this was illegal and dangerous, but I don't think the fact that some people slept there the night before is one of them.

One of the most under-appreciated benefits of living in the first world is the consistent implementation of building codes.

[Rex]

You really think this is a fire hazard??

[sancarlos]

It's a huge story here on our local tv news and in the local papers. Very sad. And, now of course they are looking for a scapegoat. Pointing the finger most prominently at the main tenant of the "collective" Nothing was up to code, no permits for the big party, many people living in a space not zoned for residential... But the thing is, apparently, the neighbors had complained about the place (mainly noise) multiple times, and officials had come by to investigate. But, nothing happened and nobody was cited. So, the city administration should also look in the mirror as they assign blame.

I read an interesting and important detail in a NY Times article about the fire, which is that the cost of living has gotten so exorbitant in the Bay Area (including Oakland), that illegal housing arrangements like this where nothing is up to code are becoming increasingly common. If so, that should be a huge part of the story here. It's unacceptable for such a major metropolitan area to do such a poor job of providing affordable housing that people need to live in unsafe and hazardous conditions. Obviously this fire is just about the worst case scenario for what can happen, but still it will hopefully be a wakeup call.

The cost of housing is a huge deal all over the Bay Area. Especially San Francisco proper. Keep in mind that there is a finite small area for building, unless you want to go way out into the far reaches of the East Bay/Central Valley. The tech industry is booming and there is a sizable chunk of people with new wealth from IPO options (right now I'm looking at a new $3 million home on my block built on Facebook options), so they can pay what they want to get the place they want. Supply is limited, and that drives demand and prices up, especially in SF and the nicer parts of the Peninsula. Landlords want to tear down old housing to put up new stock to sell to the rich folks. Rich urban kids want to live in The City. Rich young families, the Peninsula. Gentrification forces out the working class. Silicon Valley tech companies have huge charter busses helping San Franciscans commute to the Peninsula. Many middle and working-class San Franciscans had to move to Oakland where it's a bit cheaper, so the same squeeze occurs there, but squeezing the poorer folks who were already there. City services can't keep up. Especially in Oakland, which has lost most of its tax base over the past 30 years, and is just now starting to benefit from the tech boom. Oakland doesn't have money to throw at the problem, and politics out here is a polarized shitshow, anyway.

[degenerasian]

I'm not sure I understand why it matters that people lived in there when the fire supposedly happened during a party. Perhaps there are other ways in which this was illegal and dangerous, but I don't think the fact that some people slept there the night before is one of them.

One of the most under-appreciated benefits of living in the first world is the consistent implementation of building codes.

and health safety inspection of restaurants

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm not sure I understand why it matters that people lived in there when the fire supposedly happened during a party. Perhaps there are other ways in which this was illegal and dangerous, but I don't think the fact that some people slept there the night before is one of them.

One of the most under-appreciated benefits of living in the first world is the consistent implementation of building codes.

and health safety inspection of restaurants

Fucking communists. Go back to Russia.

[Shirley]

I didn't realize until reading this thread that it wasn't some sort of workplace disaster. I was wondering how so many could die in a regular warehouse fire. I get it now.

[EnochRoot]

It's a huge story here on our local tv news and in the local papers. Very sad. And, now of course they are looking for a scapegoat. Pointing the finger most prominently at the main tenant of the "collective" Nothing was up to code, no permits for the big party, many people living in a space not zoned for residential... But the thing is, apparently, the neighbors had complained about the place (mainly noise) multiple times, and officials had come by to investigate. But, nothing happened and nobody was cited. So, the city administration should also look in the mirror as they assign blame.

I read an interesting and important detail in a NY Times article about the fire, which is that the cost of living has gotten so exorbitant in the Bay Area (including Oakland), that illegal housing arrangements like this where nothing is up to code are becoming increasingly common. If so, that should be a huge part of the story here. It's unacceptable for such a major metropolitan area to do such a poor job of providing affordable housing that people need to live in unsafe and hazardous conditions. Obviously this fire is just about the worst case scenario for what can happen, but still it will hopefully be a wakeup call.

The cost of housing is a huge deal all over the Bay Area. Especially San Francisco proper. Keep in mind that there is a finite small area for building, unless you want to go way out into the far reaches of the East Bay/Central Valley. The tech industry is booming and there is a sizable chunk of people with new wealth from IPO options (right now I'm looking at a new $3 million home on my block built on Facebook options), so they can pay what they want to get the place they want. Supply is limited, and that drives demand and prices up, especially in SF and the nicer parts of the Peninsula. Landlords want to tear down old housing to put up new stock to sell to the rich folks. Rich urban kids want to live in The City. Rich young families, the Peninsula. Gentrification forces out the working class. Silicon Valley tech companies have huge charter busses helping San Franciscans commute to the Peninsula. Many middle and working-class San Franciscans had to move to Oakland where it's a bit cheaper, so the same squeeze occurs there, but squeezing the poorer folks who were already there. City services can't keep up. Especially in Oakland, which has lost most of its tax base over the past 30 years, and is just now starting to benefit from the tech boom. Oakland doesn't have money to throw at the problem, and politics out here is a polarized shitshow, anyway.

The median rent in Oakland shot up to $2900 a month according to today's NYT. What the ever living hell?

[Joe K]

That same article notes that the cost of rent is increasing at a faster rate in Oakland than in any city in America. In those conditions it's sadly unsurprising that people would opt for illegal and unsafe apartments.

[HaulCitgo]

But doesnt there need to be substandard housing so that people can afford to live somewhere? Its not that there isnt affordable housing in most places, its that there isnt well appointed affordable housing in desirable parts of town. Theres always a return to project housing but most everyone has gone away from that because of the problems caused by increased density of poverty. Market driven solutions around here have become extended stay hotels. Most of those units have folks living there semipermanently, to the point that the school bus picks up the kids. Id say its in many residents self interest not to pay for the level of code protections that they are required to receive by law. Schools, safety from crime and access to transportation are a lot more important than risk of collapse or inferno.