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

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 11:08 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #180

davidw wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If some of the area were more like this: https://goo.gl/maps/h6VUZB7hVZs Wouldn't it still be a pretty desirable place to live because of access to so many things, high paying jobs, a great climate, etc....?

It would be pretty desirable, but it would not be as desirable. All else being equal most people would rather live in less crowded conditions.

Post by Terr_ » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 1:14 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #98

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.

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…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #171

lpolovets wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what part of the bay area you live/work in, but where have you been looking? I bought in Redwood City last year and the prices, while high relative to the rest of the country, are probably manageable for many professional Bay Area couples. You can get a decent 3 bedroom for $900k-$1.2m, which is probably ~$3k-$4k/mo for [mortgage + property taxes - tax breaks].

Wow, only a million dollars for a 3 bedroom house. That's so affordable /s

Post by sangnoir » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 11:38 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #181

sangnoir wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, and also no one needs AAPL stock in order to live, but everyone needs housing If housing should be protected from 'distortions', please explain how foreclosures help? I'm not being snide - my economics knowledge is basic, kindly explain it like you would to a high-school graduate.

People generally don't have enough capital to pay cash for a house so they need to borrow some of the money. Such loans are typically secured by the value of the house. If the borrower doesn't repay the loan the lender needs to be able to liquidate the asset to make themselves whole, hence foreclosure. If this were not done, mortgages would be much more expensive because they would be much risker investments.

Post by lisper » Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #188

lisper wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People generally don't have enough capital to pay cash for a house so they need to borrow some of the money. Such loans are typically secured by the value of the house. If the borrower doesn't repay the loan the lender needs to be able to liquidate the asset to make themselves whole, hence foreclosure. If this were not done, mortgages would be much more expensive because they would be much risker investments.

> If this were not done, mortgages would be much more expensive because they would be much risker investments. So foreclosures protect mortgages, rather than housing directly, right? My take on ancestor was than housing was very important so "price distortions" need special intervention to protect housing as a societal need. I'm probably overthinking it.