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

131–140 of 208 posts

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

#131

Post by lindenksv1 »

dekhn wrote: post #105
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…

As I've pointed out elsewhere on this post, you've setting up a ton of requirements that can't be met. While I appreciate that you want to live in a "walkable area", that's pretty much the first requirement you should drop. That's a "want to have", not a "must have" in housing. Like I've pointed out elsewhere, you're setting up specious arguments when you insist of a bunch of details, like living directly in PA, livi…

The point is that if two professional salaries aren't enough to buy a home in Palo Alto, then it highlights how much everyone else must be struggling. It highlights just how far away all of our service workers must live. Highlights just how miserable housing prices and commutes have gotten for the vast majority of people in the Bay Area who aren't lucky enough to have two professional salaries. If two professionals are, according to you, expected to have a half an hour commute, then everyone else is melting into their car seats every day.

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

#132

Post by bufordsharkley »

all2well wrote: post #99
bufordsharkley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

One thing to consider is that the removal of Prop 13 would drive prices down, so in the tax burden wouldn't be as high as it would be, when compared to today's market rate of housing.

> If you thought that gentrification is bad now...

It's important to note that gentrification only happens to poor/disenfranchised neighborhoods, whereas the burden of removing Prop 13 would fall upon all, including the affluent. This is an important measure for fairness.

> 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.

Largely because policy like Prop 13 shields them from the consequences, which has led people to remain in the same property interminably (even when they may wish to move), and to push for restrictive zoning policy.

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

#133

Post by karma_vaccum123 »

lindenksv1 wrote: post #123
dekhn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Are…

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, I personally can go live 30 minutes away. So how far away should the teachers live, then? The police? Because if I can afford San Mateo, then that means they largely can't. So where are they going? Is it acceptable for them to be coming up to PA from Gilroy? Tracy? Stockton? At what point do we say that we've created a ridiculous system in which people are needles…

101 to Gilroy will often be faster and saner than 17 to Santa Cruz... sorry but you are in for some serious commute pain. Even people who only need to go as far as Summit Road eventually crack. 17 was never designed for commute traffic

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

#134

Post by lindenksv1 »

sjg007 wrote: post #33
arkadiyt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They can move elsewhere" is not a reason to not build more housing - it is reasonable (and desirable) for people to live in the city that they work in. If your argument is that they can pay 3,000 a month for the privilege of living 50 (!) miles away from work in Gilroy then that still doesn't do anything for the "teachers, police officers, and other working and middle class people" - you know, the people who actuall…

The teachers, police and fire fighters all moved out a long time ago.

The problem is that they continue to be pushed out further and further from their jobs every year because cities like Palo Alto keep adding thousands of jobs and almost no housing. That means professionals like me get pushed out of PA, move somewhere cheaper, and end up pushing out people that make less. All of these things are tied together and at the end of the domino what you get is homelessness which we've seen spike in the last 5 years.

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

#135

Post by pif »

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.

Which city-state are you talking about, if I may ask?

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

#136

Post by ocfx »

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…

More lovely entitlement from this generation.

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

#137

Post by eigenvector »

pif wrote: post #135
jhanschoo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which city-state are you talking about, if I may ask?

Most likely Singapore:

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/181599/ad...

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

#138

Post by Steeeve »

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…

As a Palo Alto resident of a little more than a year I completely agree with you.

I understand rents being high because of the cost of housing in general - it costs a great deal of money to pay the property taxes alone.

Let's face it - Palo Alto is a wondrous city. So many great things come out of this area because it's chock full of talent in so many areas - from software developers to financial investors, medical researchers, inventors, lawyers, etc. There's a reason why the cost of housing is high: many people want to live here, and living here affords all kinds of opportunity and inspiration.

But it does need to be managed. Pricing out talented individuals is bad for the future. Families should be able to move into the area to work important jobs at local businesses.

I have several children, and it's a struggle to get by in the area, let alone save for the future. I see so many people that work non-stop in great jobs that are barely making it. The cost of housing is such that it's affordable for people with multiple high incomes and that's just about it.

Many local businesses don't look good, and it's no wonder. How can they possibly bring in workers at retail wages? My neighborhood is full of people sleeping in their cars every day who work at local restaurants. At first I was completely wierded out by the phenomenon, but at this point I understand. They are just trying to get by, and can't drive in during rush hour to prepare for the dinner shift, so they do what they have to do.

The cost of housing in this area is great for some, but it affects the quality of life of many residents and many people who come to the area to work. Palo Alto needs to expand the availability of affordable housing in order to sustain itself.

Other communities have found solutions. In Huntington Beach we had Median Income Housing developed with caps on pricing. There are large facilities in town that look to be unoccupied or sparsely occupied. Surely there is room for high density housing like apartments or condos. Even a hundred units would make a difference and help drive sustainability.

My 2 cents.

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

#139

Post by Steeeve »

dekhn wrote: post #76
fortes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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…

I have looked for a year and a half at 4 bedrooms in Palo Alto for under $5k / month - the caveat being that I have pets.

I have yet to see anything pop up other than where I currently live. It was available for all of three hours.

The upside is that if I were to leave the area, I would be able to provide my landlord with acceptable tenants quickly.

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

#140

Post by ryporter »

jseliger wrote: post #2

Relatedly: "More housing density keeps Seattle affordable for younger residents:" http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/more-housing-density-kee... . Seattle is doing better than SF or NYC: http://www.vox.com/2015/12/23/10657690/seattle-housing-crisi... but still not good enough. Tokyo should be its example: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c... .

I moved from Palo Alto to Seattle in 2014. One factor was cost of living (including taxes), but another was that Seattle had a large number of very nice, relative new high rise apartments. I had my pick of great apartments, while in Palo Alto such apartments simply don't exist.

The housing problem in Palo Alto is not simply one of affordability. It's also a problem of desirability among those with the means to pay.

Post reply on HN