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

111–120 of 208 posts

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

#111

Post by lindenksv1 »

dekhn wrote: post #96
lindenksv1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can only build multifamily housing in 3% of the city. It's illegal everywhere else. You can't build more than 3 stories in most places - it's illegal. The supreme cost of housing here comes partially from the fact that you can only build a tiny number of units on land that could otherwise hold much more. So you split the cost of land among, say, 5 condos, and not 20. If you're paying 1/5 of the cost of the land and not 1/20 of the cost of the land when you buy your condo, it's obviously much more expensive.

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

#112

Post by karma_vaccum123 »

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.

Agreed but lets not oversimplify too much...in San Jose they increased density in many areas quickly and ignored parking and roads...we should be greenlighting projects but not gutting standards. What residents will usually throw back is SCHOOLS. They are afraid already crowded schools will become moreso, and there is nowhere to put new schools

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

#113

Post by deegles »

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?

On a similar note, I find it profoundly ironic that the hub of "technology will save the world" ideology hasn't fixed other local issues like homelessness.

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

#114

Post by karma_vaccum123 »

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…

Simply put, in your situation I would head to Texas. Sucks, but Santa Cruz is also gentrifying and you are already too late to catch a break there. You fought the good fight, there are other great places to live.

I would be on suicide watch if I had to take 17 every day. It is beyond awful and every day there is some lane-closing accident etc. The State will discourage more coastal development: 17 will never be improved...to do so would mean more development in precisely the areas the State wants to protect....coast and redwood forests

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

#116

Post by nwenzel »

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…

Given that a full repeal may be difficult politically, I wonder if Prop 13 could be limited to owner-occupied houses.

Seems like that would hold true to its original purpose of not taxing someone out of their home, make investment in property somewhat less appealing, and provide a more predictable funding source for schools.

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

#117

Post by fpgeek »

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…

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

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-c...

Why yes, it did. Take a look at the graph in that article. Housing in Tokyo is still expensive, but it didn't get even more expensive the way other cities did, like San Francisco. That may not be perfect, but it is a clear win.

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

#118

Post by StanislavPetrov »

karma_vaccum123 wrote: post #91
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Society is crumbling rather then collapsing. How long the process will take is anyone's guess, but you have your head buried deep in the sand if you don't see the deterioration.

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

#119

Post by astrange »

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…

Tokyo's pretty cheap to live in compared to the US. Apartments are affordable even in the city, since they're so small (and remarkably ugly). Once you have a family, even if you live out in the suburbs you only need one car, if any, and don't use it to commute.

BTW, the sign Tokyo is affordable is that all those people manage to live there. Japanese salaries are set very low to prevent anyone from thinking of having fun or quitting their salaryman jobs before the appointed time.

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

#120

Post by URSpider94 »

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.

I can't seem to reply to dekhn, so I'm writing here -- the issue is that the city won't allow people to increase density on their lots, for example by building more apartment buildings, or by adding "mother-in-law apartments" in backyards or over garages.
Post reply on HN