Skip to comments.More Sacramento-area families crowding into shared homes, census says
Posted on 10/18/2012 3:43:42 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Despite the fledgling economic recovery, more than 180,000 Sacramento-area residents live in homes stuffed with more than one occupant per room, a trend that has grown since the start of the recession, new U.S. Census Bureau data show.
These residents are usually poor or on the precipice of poverty, caught between the vise of high rent and high unemployment and just one fragile step above homelessness.
They're people like Monica Ramirez, who shares a three-bedroom Rancho Cordova home with three other adults, an autistic boy and eight other children, taking turns sleeping on the couch, bed or floor.
Between 2007 and 2011, the number of Sacramento households living in rental housing with more than one person per room jumped from roughly 18,000 to 24,000, a 30 percent increase, census figures show.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Where I live we call these “hives” since no one knows who lives there and different people live there each month. It’s not due to the economy...it’s due to an open border and law enforcement that looks the other way.
They will have one person get a “welfare” house, move in as many as possible (especially with children) to combine their welfare benefits and be able to afford a new Camero or Mustang while trashing the whole area around them.
This is nothing new for it’s a way of life for them. Drug dealing + theft + welfare = a good life.
Never in my wildest imagination saw that coming...
I'll bet this increases the property values in the vicinity. It certainly has everywhere else it's been tried. /s
Exactly..., and the down side is that these people keep decent people from moving in and upping the status of the community.
I’ve seen this take place in nice neighborhoods. Within months you’ve got an almost instant slum.
With three families in the home, it’s a lot easier for them to make the rent. So your normal single family person can’t compete for salaries or dwellings.
This is so destructive.
Houses decline. Yards go to pot. The businesses in the area decline. The community declines. All of a sudden you’ve got a neighborhood with everyone on welfare an other public service handouts.
The clientele doesn’t frequent nicer stores. They can’t continue to make a profit. Soon you’ve got nothing but very low scale discount businesses in the neighborhood. Liquor stores move in.
Gosh, what a wonderful future for the region...
OMG! More than one occupant per room!
(P.s., the "fledgling economic recovery" nonsense was cleverly placed as the opening clause. Gotta love that unbiased journalism!)
There are always so many kids they will turn the back yard into a mud puddle, then the chicken wire comes up around the front yard and it’s turned into a mud puddle.
Then they want to move the kids into the neighbors yard.
When that doesn’t work they will put the kids in the middle of the road to play.
Anybody care to ask me again why I don’t want to live in town anymore?
Replace the “flegling economic recovery” with “this second great depression”—and the article reads very differently.
Yes, that’s true.
But those government employees and retirees out there are still living high on the hog.
Since they told us the recession ended three years ago funny how they are still saying it's a "fledgling economic recovery".
They really mean “fudging”.