The Shame of Palo Alto: An Interview with Kate Downing on Affordable Housing • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by karma_vaccum123 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:46 AM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #60

ScottBurson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If not for FED chicanery, housing prices would fall precipitously to meet real demand. Maybe in some places, but I don't think that would happen in Silicon Valley. As the article says, the population of Palo Alto doubles during work days. A lot of those people would rather live there than commute from wherever. Silicon Valley is not a creation of the Fed.

Where do you think VC money comes from? Massive profits from bond, equity, and real estate profits courtesy of the FED. Cheap money borrowed at 0% thanks to the FED. Some of us older people were around to see a very similar situation in the 90's (although not nearly as bad). Greenspan debuted ~0% interest rates and the Clintons fully embraced the Reaganomic/trickle-down philosophy (now called "wealth effect"). They o…

And ZeroHedge assured me society would collapse in 2009...guess enough people don't subscribe to InfoWars

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

#92

Post by karma_vaccum123 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:49 AM UTC

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…

Multi-millionaires? ProfessorVille has numerous Billionaires on a single block.

Agree on the sentiment though...arguing for affordability in PAMPA is a lost cause

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

#93

Post by vadym909 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #54

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 prices depend on availability, and housing density is controlled by regulation. No amount of innovation can fix a zoning problem.

That is why a startup is needed. Airbnb and Uber showed how to get past regulations.

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

#94

Post by dekhn » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

lindenksv1 wrote: post #80

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…

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…

Hey, I think you're being unfair here, attributing a wide range of beliefs to me that I never stated, nor do I believe. That's really unfair. I said in another post: I hear that you're angry, but it's not OK to lash out or claim that I'm arguing something I'm not.

Anyway, with regards to home ownership: I'm personally of the belief that home ownership has been massively oversold as a benefit. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, from undergrad to staff engineer at an internet firm. Over the various dot-booms and dot-busts, I saw people moving further from the Bay Area and taking on insane commutes due to the desire to own homes. For example, many Stanford employees purchased in Tracy(!), then experienced massive financial failures when that area depreciated.

I'd like to see Prop 13 die in a fire. Unlikely to ever happen.

So, as you say, you're moving out of Palo Alto because the costs to buy there are too high. However, Santa Cruz isn't particularly cheap nor is it significantly cheaper than my own area, San Mateo, which has a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto.

If you had just said, "$90K/year in an area 30 minute commute to PA", I wouldn't have complained at all. The problem here is insisting on living directly in PA weakens the argument (it's specious) because there is no specific reason for a person to have to live in PA. There are more affordable communities around within 30 minutes commute. I feel like you're insisting that people who support a community must live (and own) in that city. I don't think that's a rational requiment.

Again, none of my argument is based on the systemic issues in the Bay Area (or anywhere with a booming economy and a large number of well-capitalized buyers), which I freely admit is a problem.

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

#95

Post by mjmahone17 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:53 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #24

maerF0x0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also governments get tax not on the value of a single property but the cumulative value of the properties (emphasis on the plurality) . If my 1M house gets replaced with 10x 250k units the government has 2.5x its tax base. See how affordability and solid tax base can coincide?

Local government costs also go up as population increases.

The relationship is not usually linear, though. With density comes efficiency in services. Though some of that efficiency is eaten by the additional cost of doing the work.

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

#96

Post by dekhn » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

lindenksv1 wrote: post #83

dekhn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

NO ONE is talking about the city providing anyone with housing. This is not about government subsidized housing. It's just about the city allowing people to build housing on the land that they own. Just permitting people to build.

What do you mean, "allow people to build housing on land that they own". What land? The cost of building housing in PA is marginal to the land costs.

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

#97

Post by lindenksv1 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #65

lindenksv1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Industries are successful when they cluster. It's why you see entertainment in LA, insurance in Chicago, biotech in North Carolina, banks in NY, and think tanks and defense contractors in DC. As we move away from manufacturing and into a knowledge economy, being able to quickly exchange and improve on ideas with other people becomes more and more valuable. It's why the entire world is seeing a massive movement toward…

> Do you think that calling your mom is the same thing as visiting her in person? Do you think you could be a good parent via Skype? Of course not. So why do you think that business relationships are any different? Because familial relationships are not transactional in the same way that business relationships are?

Business relationships are also relationships. The first people a small company hires are the people they're friends with or friendly with. The people who invest in you are more likely to be your social acquaintances or friends. You won't even get a meeting with an investor in many cases unless you have a common connection. Partnerships are formed all the time between people who also are on the same soccer team, etc. People in business also have people they like and that they don't like and that they're friends with outside of work. I have coworkers, but I also go to their BBQs and their birthday parties - they're still human beings. When people are entrusting each other with the fates of their companies, their employees, and their own personal wealth, they need a high degree of trust.

You sound like someone who has never actually had to work in a multinational company before or with remote team members. Anyone who has can tell you that things are much easier when co-workers know each other personally and become friendly with each other than when they're just strangers to you on the other end of the email. It changes how you respond to them.How likely you are to misunderstand them. How likely you are to respond with kindness or terseness. And it changes how you feel about your job in general. When you go into work and you like the people you work with and you consider yourself their friend, you're far more likely to like your job overall and stay there. If you treat your entire work life as a "transaction" then you're far less likely to be happy with your work life.

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

#98

Post by xapata » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:57 AM UTC

jhanschoo wrote: post #58

maerF0x0 wrote: post #13

Seems to be the same old story we've long known. Government interference in markets leads to distortions. Yet year after year we act surprised. And when it comes time to setting up a government, we vote for the person who promises to spend others' money on our pet project.

I'm tired of hearing the ideological position that government interference is absolutely bad. I live in a city-state where government housing and policies and strict zoning at once makes housing affordable for the middle and lower class insulated from fluctuating rents, and protects public spaces from overdevelopment in a land-scarce island.

You're right in one sense -- all government (in)actions should be considered, not an "interference" per se, but a choice made with at least some understanding of the consequences on society.

As for the problem of interfering with the market... One issue is that a well-functioning market depends on the idea that price captures all information. This is central to the idea of the "invisible hand" guiding individuals to arrive at the correct level of supply to optimally satisfy demand. When government actions set prices, the market participants no longer receive the correct information. In turn, the market will arrive either at too much supply (and waste) or too little supply (and unsatisfied demand).

In the case of housing, the government usually takes action to set prices for some homes lower than what market forces would arrive at. Therefore, the market will under-supply and some folks who want housing will not have it. The answer is to either allow prices to move without intervention or for the government to subsidize the supply of housing.

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

#99

Post by all2well » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:57 AM UTC

bufordsharkley wrote: post #51

hkmurakami wrote: post #3

It seems that we made a pact with the devil by positioning housing as an investment asset. By doing so, we've encouraged people to commit a very large fraction of their net worth into a rather illiquid asset, tying their financial fates to the future assessment of that asset. As a result, protecting the price and appreciation of this asset has come to overshadow the other crucial roles that housing plays in our socie…

The "technically correct" way to fix this would be to remove the investment potential of housing by taxing away land value (the grand old panacea of the Land Value Tax[0]). I think this is a good idea, but it's a disruptive one, and one unlikely to happen soon. But in the meantime, we might as well fix the policy that's in direct contradiction to this ideal: 1) Repeal prop 13. Full stop. 2) Intervene with exclusionar…

The thing about getting rid of prop 13 is you'd price out a lot of residents that bought a long time ago for something they don't have a whole lot of control over. If you thought that gentrification is bad now, churn in residents would got through the roof. Not to mention that you wouldn't solve the issue of shorter-term investments in land, or investments that include new constructions.

Honestly, the real issue in the bay area is there isn't enough housing, period. To solve this, build more housing, or build more infrastructure to enable people to live further away, or both. However, residents in the bay area have always been opposed to things like that.

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

#100

Post by lindenksv1 » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

geekbeast wrote: post #87

lindenksv1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Redwood City has a lot of nice houses near the downtown for under $2M

It didn't when we were looking. We didn't see a single property come up on the downtown side of El Camino. We would have liked that, but we didn't see it. And also $2M would also not have been within the band we were looking for.