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

Post by aianus » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:37 AM UTC

vadym909 wrote: post #56

toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or move the jobs out of ridiculously high COL areas? An area of land has a carrying capacity dictated by the will of the people who live there through their votes. Why fight it when you can simply move work elsewhere?

The weather man. You get to 'live' almost twice as many hours because of the weather. Add top companies, upcoming companies, jobs, schools, colleges, city stuff, nature stuff, Sports and you just can't beat it. After all you only live once.

Post by lindenksv1 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:39 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #73

lindenksv1 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inc…

Post by bufordsharkley » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:39 AM UTC

youngButEager wrote: post #78

bufordsharkley wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Post by geekbeast » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:41 AM UTC

lindenksv1 wrote: post #52

ScottBurson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory doesn't explain why she's moving to Santa Cruz -- the schools are nothing special there.

We're moving to Santa Cruz because we wanted to live in a walkable area. If you travel up and down the peninsula, any house near the walkable downtown area is going to be $2M+. Yeah, sure, you can buy for less and have to travel by car absolutely everywhere. But why spend $1.5 to live in a dead cul de sac when you can spend the same money to live in a lively walkable area near the beach? If you're going to hang an al…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:42 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #66

Palo Alto has the problem that people don't leave. It used to be a college town. University Avenue had four bookstores. But then people stopped moving away. About a decade ago, Palo Alto did a survey of residents to find out how long they intended to live where they were. Most said they intended to live there for the rest of their life. This implies Palo Alto becoming a retirement community. University Avenue now has…