A year ago, the two buildings of this complex weren’t apartments at all. They comprised the Good Nite Inn, a hotel on Work Street, just around the corner from where John Street connects to Highway 101. Today the inn is a home for 64 residents, created through a state program born out of the pandemic called Homekey to rapidly house vulnerable individuals. With nearly $8 million in state funds and another $46 million coming from philanthropic sources, California now has 120 Homekey developments, creating 5,900 new housing units that are now home to 8,260 people who once had no home to call their own.
“A small miracle” is what Megan Hunter, community development director for the city of Salinas, calls the city’s first Homekey development. When fully renovated next year, it will house over 100 people in 101 studio apartments. The development went from concept to move-in-ready in a matter of five months, unheard of in the world of affordable housing. Normally building any type of low-income or permanent supportive housing – housing that includes case managers and supportive services – takes years.
It also takes lots of money, but Homekey has proved to dramatically lower the cost: the typical cost of constructing affordable housing can run between $500,000-$750,000 per unit. For Homekey it can run below $200,000 per unit to convert former hotels and motels. Salinas’ Homekey project was purchased and built at a cost of approximately $168,000 per unit.
I'm assuming because that's the cost to buy or build new residential structures. Doubly so considering that California has terrible zoning laws in many places which prevent high density...
I'm assuming because that's the cost to buy or build new residential structures. Doubly so considering that California has terrible zoning laws in many places which prevent high density residential from being constructed. I think this changed for the better within the last few months but it's still far from ideal.
I've just looked up Monterey County and it seems to be one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive states, so it makes a bit more sense that $500k actually would be equivalent to...
I've just looked up Monterey County and it seems to be one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive states, so it makes a bit more sense that $500k actually would be equivalent to the lower end market price in that situation. I'm not sure if that maps across the whole state, but it's at least a bit more understandable than my initial sticker shock reaction.
Offtopic - I live in Canada, but had my VPN turned on and set to the UK, since I was watching some shows on Channel 4, Dave, and the BBC. And when I clicked this link I got an error which I have...
Offtopic - I live in Canada, but had my VPN turned on and set to the UK, since I was watching some shows on Channel 4, Dave, and the BBC. And when I clicked this link I got an error which I have never seen before, but which is apparently an official HTTP error code (TIL):
451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact frontdesk@mcweekly.com or call 831-394-5656.
Is that error common for y'all in the EU to encounter when visiting US sites?
p.s. I also find it rather ironic to have gotten this error since the UK isn't in the EU anymore, and so none of its citizens are even protected by the GDPR anymore.
Oh yeah, it's the kind of thing I run into once every month or two - almost exclusively sites exactly like this: local news organisations for a smallish US geography. Sometimes it'll be some...
Oh yeah, it's the kind of thing I run into once every month or two - almost exclusively sites exactly like this: local news organisations for a smallish US geography.
Sometimes it'll be some platitude about "We care about our European viewers and we're working to make this content available", sometimes more direct as this one is. I've definitely seen this exact wording/font/layout on other sites, although I couldn't tell you whether it's the same parent company or just the same software.
I'm ambivalent about using a 451 for this. I feel like the code has an obvious intent: "I'm being blocked from showing you this content because of government censorship", and implying you're being censored for content when you actually just refuse to use compliant advertiser tracking (or present a plantext alternative like NPR does) rubs me the wrong way. Ultimately it is still "legal reasons", and it's not like there's any formal restriction on what HTTP codes you use anyway, but it's always struck me as kind of slimy.
I also find it rather ironic to have gotten this error since the UK isn't in the EU anymore, and so none of its citizens are even protected by the GDPR anymore.
This is an interesting one, actually! Most (all?) EU law affecting domestic policies, like data privacy, is implemented individually by each member state - they're obliged to do so by the EU, but the laws are their own. This means that the day one impact of Brexit was largely on international relations (particularly import/export and immigrants' rights) rather than on the laws applicable to UK citizens. I believe there was also effectively a snapshot taken of the then-current EU policies to use in cases where domestic law depended on them, although I'm not 100% on the specifics there.
Either way, we still have GDPR-compliant privacy laws for now. I fully expect our current government to erode those rights in time, which they are only able to do because of Brexit, but thankfully they didn't disappear overnight.
Ah right, I do seem to remember reading that about the EU and its member States with regards to how the laws work, so I should have guessed there was probably still similar protections for UK...
Ah right, I do seem to remember reading that about the EU and its member States with regards to how the laws work, so I should have guessed there was probably still similar protections for UK citizens despite them leaving it.
And yeah, I agree that it does seem a bit misguided to use the 451 error in this case, since it implies government censorship is somehow involved... when this is really due to the owners of the site basically just refusing to stop hoovering up as much personal information as possible, and not retain that data indefinitely anymore. And since even Tildes is GDPR compliant despite being on a shoestring budget, there really isn't any legit excuses for regional/metropolitan US news sites not to be too, IMO.
It is very common for US news media, especially local and regional sites, and uncommon for everything else. As others note, there are a few common texts, probably the result of local media being...
Is that error common for y'all in the EU to encounter when visiting US sites?
It is very common for US news media, especially local and regional sites, and uncommon for everything else. As others note, there are a few common texts, probably the result of local media being owned by a few companies. They're often quite insulting and disingenuous, for example, saying "we are about our European customers" and "are actively looking for solutions", along with a copyright year on the page making it clear nothing has changed since the GDPR was implemented years ago.
National and online-focused sites often either completely ignore and violate the GDPR (The Verge), or illegally have a hard paywall where one way of paying is to agree to be spied on (Washington Post).
One gets the sense that much of the US news media is just a giant data collection business, and news is secondary, such that in most local and regional news, the blanket ban suggests even paying subscribers are not the real customers, and are having their data sold too.
I’ve heard of it happening for some US sites but I think it’s relatively rare. Sorry about that! Hopefully the quoted excerpt is enough to get the gist.
I’ve heard of it happening for some US sites but I think it’s relatively rare. Sorry about that! Hopefully the quoted excerpt is enough to get the gist.
I just temporarily switched my VPN off in order to read it, so it wasn't a major issue for me. However, Geo-restrictions such as this are likely still a relatively large impediment to most EU...
I just temporarily switched my VPN off in order to read it, so it wasn't a major issue for me. However, Geo-restrictions such as this are likely still a relatively large impediment to most EU users (unless they happen to have a NA VPN), which is why I was curious how often they encounter them.
From the article:
How?! Why on earth wouldn't the housing authority just buy on the open market long before that point?
I'm assuming because that's the cost to buy or build new residential structures. Doubly so considering that California has terrible zoning laws in many places which prevent high density residential from being constructed. I think this changed for the better within the last few months but it's still far from ideal.
I've just looked up Monterey County and it seems to be one of the most expensive places in one of the most expensive states, so it makes a bit more sense that $500k actually would be equivalent to the lower end market price in that situation. I'm not sure if that maps across the whole state, but it's at least a bit more understandable than my initial sticker shock reaction.
Offtopic - I live in Canada, but had my VPN turned on and set to the UK, since I was watching some shows on Channel 4, Dave, and the BBC. And when I clicked this link I got an error which I have never seen before, but which is apparently an official HTTP error code (TIL):
Is that error common for y'all in the EU to encounter when visiting US sites?
p.s. I also find it rather ironic to have gotten this error since the UK isn't in the EU anymore, and so none of its citizens are even protected by the GDPR anymore.
Oh yeah, it's the kind of thing I run into once every month or two - almost exclusively sites exactly like this: local news organisations for a smallish US geography.
Sometimes it'll be some platitude about "We care about our European viewers and we're working to make this content available", sometimes more direct as this one is. I've definitely seen this exact wording/font/layout on other sites, although I couldn't tell you whether it's the same parent company or just the same software.
I'm ambivalent about using a 451 for this. I feel like the code has an obvious intent: "I'm being blocked from showing you this content because of government censorship", and implying you're being censored for content when you actually just refuse to use compliant advertiser tracking (or present a plantext alternative like NPR does) rubs me the wrong way. Ultimately it is still "legal reasons", and it's not like there's any formal restriction on what HTTP codes you use anyway, but it's always struck me as kind of slimy.
This is an interesting one, actually! Most (all?) EU law affecting domestic policies, like data privacy, is implemented individually by each member state - they're obliged to do so by the EU, but the laws are their own. This means that the day one impact of Brexit was largely on international relations (particularly import/export and immigrants' rights) rather than on the laws applicable to UK citizens. I believe there was also effectively a snapshot taken of the then-current EU policies to use in cases where domestic law depended on them, although I'm not 100% on the specifics there.
Either way, we still have GDPR-compliant privacy laws for now. I fully expect our current government to erode those rights in time, which they are only able to do because of Brexit, but thankfully they didn't disappear overnight.
Ah right, I do seem to remember reading that about the EU and its member States with regards to how the laws work, so I should have guessed there was probably still similar protections for UK citizens despite them leaving it.
And yeah, I agree that it does seem a bit misguided to use the 451 error in this case, since it implies government censorship is somehow involved... when this is really due to the owners of the site basically just refusing to stop hoovering up as much personal information as possible, and not retain that data indefinitely anymore. And since even Tildes is GDPR compliant despite being on a shoestring budget, there really isn't any legit excuses for regional/metropolitan US news sites not to be too, IMO.
It is very common for US news media, especially local and regional sites, and uncommon for everything else. As others note, there are a few common texts, probably the result of local media being owned by a few companies. They're often quite insulting and disingenuous, for example, saying "we are about our European customers" and "are actively looking for solutions", along with a copyright year on the page making it clear nothing has changed since the GDPR was implemented years ago.
National and online-focused sites often either completely ignore and violate the GDPR (The Verge), or illegally have a hard paywall where one way of paying is to agree to be spied on (Washington Post).
One gets the sense that much of the US news media is just a giant data collection business, and news is secondary, such that in most local and regional news, the blanket ban suggests even paying subscribers are not the real customers, and are having their data sold too.
I’ve heard of it happening for some US sites but I think it’s relatively rare. Sorry about that! Hopefully the quoted excerpt is enough to get the gist.
I just temporarily switched my VPN off in order to read it, so it wasn't a major issue for me. However, Geo-restrictions such as this are likely still a relatively large impediment to most EU users (unless they happen to have a NA VPN), which is why I was curious how often they encounter them.