Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

stanfordpolitics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 208 posts

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#71

Post by twblalock »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #4

"Downing and her husband, an attorney and programmer, respectively, say they simply could not afford to pay almost $150,000 per year for housing alone while starting a family in Palo Alto." It's interesting the difference a couple of miles make. $150,000 per year is $12,500 a month. The most expensive house for rent in East Palo Alto (3 miles away) is $6,000 (half that) and there are many choices under $4,000 per mon…

> Whining about not being able to afford to live in a neighborhood where multi-millionaires want to live is not very productive.

You make it seem like solely a demand-driven problem, but supply is being artificially restricted, which is a form of protectionism that is unbecoming of the otherwise highly capitalist homeowners of Palo Alto.

The point has been made well here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/col...

"The people who bought their homes a long time ago lucked into a windfall and they resentfully lash out at anyone trying to cut in on that windfall. But notice how un-American these claims are. The current residents want to protect their gains by telling other people how they can use their property. When a new restaurant starts to take patrons from an old restaurant we generally don’t think that the old restaurant–the long-term resident–has the right to prevent the new restaurant from opening. The same is true, by and large, for new technologies and ways of doing business. Yet when it comes to residential land we give the old residents a veto on the new."

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#72

Post by bufordsharkley »

youngButEager wrote: post #70
lindenksv1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free market in housing. Supply is very tightly constrained by the city via a system of very stringent zoning (3 stories max most of the city, only 3% of the city is even zone for multifamily housing) and taxes. What you see happening in the Bay Area isn't the result of the laws of supply and demand, it's the result of the laws passed by city councils. There's no developer in the world who wouldn't love to…

It does not matter , the 'supply being constrained' point. Let's say that Palo Alto allows high-density housing. Will that solve the housing supply issue? No. You missed the point about the east coast having been settled first in the USA. And the point about LA. Both of those regions allow high density housing. Would Palo Alto housing drop in price? NO. The only way to solve Palo Alto's housing problem is -- MAKE IT…

> If Palo Alto could suddenly pop up a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos, that supply would be taken up quickly. The same is true for San Francisco.

This is a sign that a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos is not enough to match demand. But (there's a little law out there called "Supply and Demand", if I'm remembering right), there's a correct amount to build that would. Saying that the necessary supply to meet demand is infinite is quite silly.

> >"There is no free market in housing." Not true. Go visit large geographic areas that are not 'destination cities' like Stockton; Modesto; Vallejo.

What you're seeing here is that we have land-use policy that allows us to sanely build cities up until a point, whereupon speculation over land value will make new development economically and politically infeasible.

Nobody wants the extra land in Stockton very much, but everybody wants Palo Alto land. The problem is that the land is held for very little cost by people who don't want to actually use it. (The market is giving a very strong signal, via price, that is should be developed for housing with much higher density.)

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#73

Post by dekhn »

lindenksv1 wrote: post #46
dekhn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the argument is based on her insisting that she had to buy a house in Palo Alto. But renting a place large enough would have been much cheaper than that $150,000: $5k/month gets you a nice 4 bedroom. I don't think her math adds up. She's just insisting that she has to buy, and it has to be in Palo Alto. Neither of those are truly requirements for her, so the $150K quote is specious. EDIT: I acknowledge $5k is not…

Hey there. I'm Kate Downing. I don't insist on living in Palo Alto at all. See? I'm moving. But what I'm trying to say is that we have a serious problem because people who are integral to our community who SHOULDN'T move can't afford it. You can tell lawyers and engineers to go get lost and they don't HAVE to buy a house in Palo Alto. But are you also going to tell our police, firemen, teachers, city staff, nurses an…

My complaint was based on the $150,000 quote, specifically, because it's a specious one. It is not based in fact.

I'm certainly not arguing that Palo Alto or areas around it don't have serious pricing problems caused by policy that restricts growth. I rent in San Mateo (can't afford to buy) and am very frustrated that houses typically cost $1M or more (outside of what I consider affordable, on a dual-professional income, very similar to yours).

Based on your response what I am hearing is that you're angry. That's fine, but you're lashing out. For example, you just attacked me, while I provided a data-driven argument that your $150K argument was simply false. It's based, apparently, on your insistence that you must buy, rather than rent. Renting is currently much more affordable than buying in the Bay Area.

As for whether the support staff for a city should be able to afford to live in the city they support, that's another argument. I personally do not see any requirement that a city provides affordable housing to its support staff, especially in the form of purchased housing. That would be a major policy change that would have enormous impact.

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#74

Post by lindenksv1 »

ermterm wrote: post #35

As much as I appreciate all these articles expounding the plethora of issues stemming from housing in the Bay Area, I can't help but feel thoroughly discouraged. It seems that despite an abundance of chatter, we'll never see any change. If things were going to be fundamentally different, any time soon, we'd see indications of that. Instead it's just articles. Articles, on articles, on articles.

Don't be discouraged! YIMBY groups are popping up all over the Bay Area working to make a difference in their cities. Join a group's mailing list and show up at your city council when they ask you to. Easy. Bring enough friends and we'll see real change.

Live in Palo Alto: paloaltoforward.com Live in Menlo Park? www.imaginemenlo.com Mountain View? http://balancedmv.org/ San Francisco? http://www.sfbarf.org/

Some headlines: http://gizmodo.com/yimby-groups-are-organizing-across-the-us... https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/who-are-yimby-first-meeting...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/06/30/what-is-a-...

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#76

Post by dekhn »

fortes wrote: post #61
dekhn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the argument is based on her insisting that she had to buy a house in Palo Alto. But renting a place large enough would have been much cheaper than that $150,000: $5k/month gets you a nice 4 bedroom. I don't think her math adds up. She's just insisting that she has to buy, and it has to be in Palo Alto. Neither of those are truly requirements for her, so the $150K quote is specious. EDIT: I acknowledge $5k is not…

$5k / month definitely does not get you a nice 4 bedroom in Palo Alto. Maybe in East Palo Alto, but that is a very different place in terms of quality of life, safety, and schools. Edit: I decided to check, and there is one place in Palo Alto right now with 4 bedrooms at that price https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/pen/apa?nh=83&max_price=... From personal experience, as someone who was priced out of Palo Alto this…

I see plenty of units for rent in Palo Alto in this price range. Not East Palo Alto, Palo Alto. Also, don't just check Craigslist- that only includes a very limited number of rentals in that price range; other rental searches show a lot more examples.

[EDIT: I had incorrectly filtered my search. The price break is at $6K for a 4 bedroom (at least 4 units) not $5K. However, that is still well under half of the quoted value of $150K for a house purchase).

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#77

Post by geekbeast »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #50
vadym909 wrote: post #29

I'm surprised that none of the YCs startups have tried to solve this problem. People really want 'affordable housing' and YC's motto to its startups is to 'make something people want'- so what gives?

Housing is not just an app... I'd like to see someone mass produce stackable prefabricated units out of pieces and assemble them into multi-floor apartment buildings, increasing the number of aparments on offer very fast and driving costs down. Unfortunately, I think the problem here comes down to regulations. It's hard to acquire land. Much of the bay area has laws preventing you from building new housing much highe…

Like this? http://www.abc10.com/news/local/sacramento/modular-apartment...

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#78

Post by youngButEager »

bufordsharkley wrote: post #72
youngButEager wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not matter , the 'supply being constrained' point. Let's say that Palo Alto allows high-density housing. Will that solve the housing supply issue? No. You missed the point about the east coast having been settled first in the USA. And the point about LA. Both of those regions allow high density housing. Would Palo Alto housing drop in price? NO. The only way to solve Palo Alto's housing problem is -- MAKE IT…

> If Palo Alto could suddenly pop up a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos, that supply would be taken up quickly. The same is true for San Francisco. This is a sign that a few skyscrapers of apartments and condos is not enough to match demand. But (there's a little law out there called "Supply and Demand", if I'm remembering right), there's a correct amount to build that would. Saying that the necessary supply…

You underestimate things.

Is Tokyo a destination city? Yes. Total urban population? 38 million people.

I don't think you realize how attractive a beautiful city really is to the people of our planet.

While I'd agree that 38 million people is not 'infinite' -- it's a lot of people. Palo Alto is at 66,000 people right now.

Did Tokyo's decision to allow high density housing solve their 'housing is too expensive in Tokyo' problem?

NO. Tokyo is one of the most expensive cities on the planet to reside in.

Again, adding supply to a Destination City will NOT bring down housing costs. The crybaby lawyer failed to factor in the difference between Palo Alto and Stockton.

And it will be a big surprise to her -- Santa Cruz is very pricey. And won't be getting any cheaper.

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#79

Post by qwerty12653 »

youngButEager wrote: post #70
lindenksv1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free market in housing. Supply is very tightly constrained by the city via a system of very stringent zoning (3 stories max most of the city, only 3% of the city is even zone for multifamily housing) and taxes. What you see happening in the Bay Area isn't the result of the laws of supply and demand, it's the result of the laws passed by city councils. There's no developer in the world who wouldn't love to…

It does not matter , the 'supply being constrained' point. Let's say that Palo Alto allows high-density housing. Will that solve the housing supply issue? No. You missed the point about the east coast having been settled first in the USA. And the point about LA. Both of those regions allow high density housing. Would Palo Alto housing drop in price? NO. The only way to solve Palo Alto's housing problem is -- MAKE IT…

I don't normally bother commenting, but I thought I'd offer a few observations here.

First, the second you start using all caps to make an argument, in effect yelling, you significantly lose any credibility your argument might otherwise have had. If you want to make an effective argument, and for readers to not otherwise ignore your point, I'd recommend not doing that. It does no one involved any good, and essentially shuts down the conversation.

Second, your overall tone here seems incredibly condescending. I realize it's often difficult to judge tone on the internet, so if I have misread that tone, I apologize. However, condescension is another quick way to short-circuit any fruitful conversation you might have otherwise had.

It's fine to disagree with someone, even to disagree vociferously, but talking down to someone is not going to convince them of anything. Quite the opposite, in fact.

If you want to not only convince someone of something, but also have a fruitful conversation where hopefully everyone involved actually learns something, it's generally wise to assume the person you're talking to is an intelligent human being who has valid reasons for believing the things they do, regardless of whether you agree with those reasons or not, and treat them accordingly.

Re: The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing

#80

Post by lindenksv1 »

dekhn wrote: post #36
mbreese wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $150,000 number is the cost of the mortgage needed to buy a home the size of the one they rented in Palo Alto [1]. The breakdown was that they rented the home with another couple for $6200/mo. If they wanted to buy a similar home, it would cost ~ $2.7M, thus the $12.5k/mo mortgage. They were already renting a place in Palo Alto at ~ $3100/mo. Their problem was that they wanted to start a family and needed more sp…

So, the argument is based on her insisting that she had to buy a house in Palo Alto. But renting a place large enough would have been much cheaper than that $150,000: $5k/month gets you a nice 4 bedroom. I don't think her math adds up. She's just insisting that she has to buy, and it has to be in Palo Alto. Neither of those are truly requirements for her, so the $150K quote is specious. EDIT: I acknowledge $5k is not…

Yes, I can rent. I can rent until I die. But how bizarre is it that you are telling me and everyone else who isn't wealth enough to have bought a house yet that we "insist" on buying and we should be happy to rent forever when we spent decades telling the baby boomers the exact opposite? As a country, we recognize the wealth building aspect of home ownership. We recognize the stability it gives people who don't have to worry about rent increases and who don't have to worry about pulling their kids out of their school. We see the value of people leaving their kids with homes after they die, not dusty rent checks. We recognize the value of people putting down roots in their community and investing in it. We gave the baby boomers the mortgage interest rate deduction, Prop 13, and the GI bill and numerous other programs to make sure that everyone in the middle class could have a home to call their own.

Now you're saying that it was fine for the American dream for boomers to involve home ownership but if a Millennial wants the same benefits then they're "entitled" and "insisting"?

The absurd cost of housing in this country and the declining rates of homeownership are directly tied to the massive divergence we're seeing between rich and poor in this country and the shrinking middle class. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...

Post reply on HN