13 ms·
Palo Alto considers subsidized housing for salary up to $250K
- nharada 10y agoThe middle class STARTS at 150K?
- throwaway_exer 10y agoA tear-down starts at $2 million in PA, so you would need a combined family income of about $350,000 to qualify for a mortgage - just to tear it down. Factoid: there's a house in downtown PA with a yard the size of a small farm. Of course, it was bought when the surrounding area was farmland.
- Harimwakairi 10y agoIn Silicon Valley, yes.
- mifreewil 10y agoYeah, I think this is a bit exaggerated. Housing is a lot more expensive in Palo Alto/Silicon Valley than the rest of the US - but not that much.
- jmspring 10y agoPalo Alto/Mountain View is double digit percentage higher than places an hour or two out -- assuming non-commute hours. But, Santa Cruz to Marin, not that wildly different.
- mifreewil 10y agoTo say the middle class starts at 150k, you'd have to classify lots of professionals working in/around Palo Alto as lower class - including engineers.
- mifreewil 10y agoAlthough, the article mentions "family" making 150k-250k. So this implies two incomes, so each person making 75k-125k, which seems like a more accurate reflection of middle class in SV.
- davidjnelson 10y agoSingle family homes with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1,500 sq ft, 2000 sq ft yard, built after 1980, recently sold prices on zillow: Palo Alto: Averages roughly $4,000,000. http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto-CA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/26374_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/37.484257,-121.973992,37.279106,-122.297059_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Palo-Alto-CA/fsba,fsbo_... Austin, Texas: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Austin-TX/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/10221_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/30.737704,-97.13974,29.846004,-98.432007_rect/9_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Austin-TX/fsba,fsbo_lt/... Orlando, Florida: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Orlando-FL/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/13121_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/28.707753,-80.91362,28.253888,-81.559754_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Orlando-FL/fsba,fsbo_lt... Chicago, Illinois: Averages roughly $800,000 (5x less) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Chicago-IL/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/17426_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/42.026088,-87.4086,41.641361,-88.054734_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Chicago-IL/fsba,fsbo_lt... Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Averages roughly $400,000 (10x less) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Philadelphia-PA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/13271_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/40.200117,-74.794922,39.804579,-75.441056_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Philadelphia-PA/fsba,fs... Seattle, Washington: Averages roughly $1,000,000 (4x less) http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Seattle-WA/fsba,fsbo_lt/house_type/16037_rid/3-_beds/2-_baths/any_days/1500-_size/2000-_lot/1980-_built/47.787094,-122.021714,47.439002,-122.667847_rect/10_zm/0_mmm/1_rs/ http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Seattle-WA/fsba,fsbo_lt... Palo Alto is definitely _much_ more expensive.
- burfog 10y agoEven your cheapest examples are expensive. It's about $150,000 ($100,000 to $250,000) in Palm Bay, FL. That's normal peaceful USA, with tech jobs and even kind of near the beach, not some decaying hellhole. So make that a factor of 30, without even looking at bad places.
- 10y ago
- mbreese 10y agoNo, it's not exaggerated. Housing prices on the peninsula (PA/MW in particular) are so far outside of the distribution for the rest of the country, it's not even funny. And it's not just the housing that is significantly more expensive. Schools, daycare, anything that involves kids is easily 2x as expensive around Palo Alto. Saying that middle class in PA starts at $250K sounds about right. It is very difficult to have a family in the area for less than that. Source: I recently moved from Mountain View to the Midwest (family of 4). My wife and I have talked a lot about moving back, but we decided that a minimum salary level would likely need to be above $250K for us to even consider it.
- brianwawok 10y agoI wouldn't say it is that far out of the distribution of NYC. It is very far from the middle of Iowa, but there is at least NYC to share the absurd housing price with :)
- TheCoelacanth 10y agoNYC or Manhattan? Manhattan is probably around the same as Palo Alto, but that's only a tiny portion of NYC.
- brianwawok 10y agoYa I guess that is the bigger difference. NYC you travel less far to find sanity than Palo Alto.
- pmiller2 10y agoI could literally rent a 4br/2ba apartment in my hometown in BFE Midwest for about $300/month less than I'm paying for a room in the East Bay.
- davidjnelson 10y agoI think of middle class in silicon valley starting at $250,000 honestly. $150,000 seems low based on the housing costs.
- mc32 10y agoConsolidate bay area government (ABAG) and come up with a comprehensive and cohesive growth plan (housing, transportation, taxes, zoning, etc.) Piecemeal reactive and Nimby policies are antithetical to the needs of the area. Forget about 1960s idyll. It's the 2010s, act like it. The area doesn't have to do growth Chinese-style, but we could to growth Singapore-style/Korea-style with North American values (i.e. less patronizing and more community involvement, up to a point)
- uola 10y agoI think that train already left the station as Apple, Google and Facebook are building new sprawling campuses. There's unlikely to be any significant infrastructure growth without dense business districts.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoWhat does this mean? The large tech companies are no fan of NIMBY policies, they know the insane housing prices make it harder to recruit. Google in particular has expressed interest in developing high-density housing (by south bay area standards) in Mountain View now that the area around its campus has been rezoned to allow housing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 10y agoHe's suggesting the corporate campuses needs to be condensed too. I haven't been in the Bay Area for years, but when I was there last at least, it was noteworthy given the property prices, how much low-rise commercial property there was. Frankly, a lot of the problem would be solved with a few highrise districts. I live in London. My road here has much smaller plots than a typical Palo Alto street. Yet the my road with 660 houses, takes up ~40,000 square meters of land (including the road and gardens). Near our local rail station they're building a few developments that will include at least one 55 story tower. Combined they will house about as many people as our road on maybe about 1,000 square meters of land. High density can solve a lot of problems if done right.
- bettyx1138 10y agoNYC needs this too.
- joeblau 10y agoI have some co-workers from NYC (Queens/Brooklyn) and from what they were telling me; Only Manhattan is really crazy, not all of NYC? I'm not sure how accurate that is as I've never lived in NYC.
- jrockway 10y agoMost of New York is really crazy. There are many places in Manhattan that are cheaper than places in Brooklyn and Queens now. If you have a million dollars to spend, though, you may be able to get a pretty nice studio or a pretty crap 1 bedroom, though. (I'm sure Staten Island and the Bronx are relatively cheaper though. Ultimately the neighborhoods I want to live in are neighborhoods that most other people in my income group want to live in. Thus prices go up.)
- havetocharge 10y agoNYC is in a much better situation than SF or Palo Alto. A lot more choice here, both in and around the city. You do have to be OK with apx 1 hr commute.
- qmr 10y agoI don't understand why people are content to absolutely waste 12% of their waking hours commuting to and from a job. Boggles the mind.
- natrius 10y agoIn most of Palo Alto, it's against the law to build anything but the most expensive kind of housing—single family homes with big yards. People who already bought in get to enjoy their walled-off neighborhoods at the expense of families with less money. It's nice that they feel bad enough about it to do something, but instead of legalizing cheaper housing on less land, they're trying to fund a lottery as a totem to make themselves feel better about the artificial affordability crisis they've created.
- xiphias 10y agoActually it doesn't legalize cheaper housing, as it won't change the supply/demand. The house prices will increase by the subsidy amount. All this subsidy does is that it funnels more public (tax-payer) money to house owners.
- natrius 10y agoThese programs typically have a formula to set prices based on income. It's a lottery, not a direct subsidy like school loans.
- pgreenwood 10y agoI agree that monetary subsidies tend to simply get capitalized into higher prices, but if you read the article the proposal is to actually build 2,000 units.
- runholm 10y agoWhat? No. They are building housing and will rent it out below market price. No one is given a monthly check to spend on housing or anything like that.
- dimino 10y agoWhy is it "at the expense of" others, to own a home now? I've been trying for years to understand the concept of "everyone should be able to live everywhere" but I just cannot wrap my head around it, or it's cousin, "I shouldn't ever have to move, regardless of geopolitical changes". Why are people so attached to any particular place that they'll suffer immensely to keep that particular place theirs?
- whyenot 10y ago> The plan is a among a series of proposals being mulled by the Palo Alto City Council to provide affordable housing to those considered middle class in the area - families making between $150,000 to $250,000 annually. As a point of reference, starting salary for a teacher in the Palo Alto Unified School District is $57.5k. Someone who has taught in the district for 30 years with significant post-credential grad school makes double that.
- jmspring 10y agoAnd someone likely teaching in the district for 30 years, likely already owns a home there. They are also very lucky for Prop 13.
- onion2k 10y agoThere's an implied assumption that a "family" will have two incomes.
- jon-wood 10y agoAnd because of the way the free market works despite the average family working twice as many hours as one in the fifties they're no better off, and in a lot of cases worse off, in terms of what they can actually afford. And kids never get to see their parents. I don't know what the solution is long term but I have a feeling someday this experiment in free market capitalism is going to be considered in similar ways to the USSR's experiment in communism a few decades from now.
- briandear 10y agoDo you have any data supporting those claims?
- lgieron 10y ago> And because of the way the free market works despite the average family working twice as many hours as one in the fifties they're no better off IMO the fifties in the US were a total anomaly and they're not coming back ever. It was a time where (more than?) half of the world was taken out of competition due to idiotic economic system of communism, and Europe, the only potential competitor to the US, was still in shambles after the war. The US were a sole economic superpower, no wonder people had it great back then.
- topspin 10y agoPalo Alto property owners rejoice; subsidizing demand is a sure-fire way to drive up prices.
- rollulus 10y agoExactly. Here in the Netherlands, housing is also subsidized: you can roughly subtract the mortgage's interest from your income before tax is calculated. The only result is that houses are more expensive.
- runholm 10y agoThe purpose of that system is to have more people owning their own home and fewer people renting. It assures that there is a cap on how much of the housing is owned by companies for the purpose of renting it out.
- brianwawok 10y agoOh mortgage tax deduction is old hat in the states, this is on top of that.
- mickrussom 10y agoGood idea. Too little too late. I suffer horribly with my small family and two good jobs. One job basically pays for the taxes. And housing is so expensive I cant get over the hump to get a mortgage to see any tax benefits. Its really crushing to not be a landed gentry here. We rent is a good school district and have a kind landlord but we cannot build housing equity besides having good jobs.
- eru 10y agoWhy won't they just implement a land tax, and reform zoning? (Of course, because these two sensible policies would not be in favour of landowners. Subsidies demand is.)
- gaius 10y agoLand tax penalizes retirees is why.
- eru 10y agoNot really. Two solutions: either rely on the private sector to provide `reverse mortgages'. Or let the government offer the same product, ie allow people on low income but with lots of land value to defer payment until death or sale. In addition, phase in land tax over a decade so that people have time to adapt. If you phase out other taxes at a similar rate, you will even get a great increase in land values. (Basically, land in a jurisdiction that charges less eg income taxes or sales taxes is great for doing business on. So people will bid up its price.)
- gaius 10y ago"phase out other taxes" is the gaping hole in that argument. Property isn't just a market - its peoples homes and communities too - thats the other gaping hole. Why should Grandma need to move away so some Unicorn startup can move in?
- eru 10y agoWhy should some old people who managed to get lucky a few decades ago be allowed to sit on some of the most desireable real estate on the planet and not pay the community for it? Anyway, grandma is a red herring. > "phase out other taxes" is the gaping hole in that argument. See eg http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/10/16/the-unplumbed-revenue-potential-of-land-part-3-atcor-all-taxes-come-out-of-rents/ http://www.georgistjournal.org/2012/10/16/the-unplumbed-reve... When taxes fall, real estate prices rise by enough to make up for it. Capturing that rise is simple with a land tax. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem for how that's a rather orthodex statement. Nothing outside the mainstream of economics here.) The whole process is very economically efficient. Swap taxes on elastic economic activity like work or investing for taxes on inelastic land.
- VeejayRampay 10y agoThe noob question cause I feel like I don't understand the issue: Why are companies not pushing for remote workers? Are the downsides overweighing the positive or is it a cultural thing?
- CardenB 10y agoSpontaneous interaction is just a huge boon for productivity. That's how I've ever understood it.
- douche 10y agoThat's the propaganda line, anyway... I'd much prefer deliberate and well-planned interactions, with plenty of distraction-free time in between to actually get some work done.
- kspaans 10y agoIt takes a different skillset to work remotely, so there is a lot of inertia behind current work setups.
- mtgx 10y agoThis lead to the sellers accounting for the subsidy and increasing their prices accordingly.
- alexc05 10y agoThis seems like a bad idea (gut check). Won't the availability of public money for private housing help to drive prices up? Everything I see seems to indicate that the price of housing expands to fill the amount of money available. Cheap interest rates managed to change the base price of homes such that the mortgage payment is roughly the same. Now it is individuals & condo developers collecting that difference rather than banks. Or am I totally off base here? Increasing property taxes shifts the burden of ownership to the people who have money... though suppose that would get passed through to renters as well.
- calpaterson 10y ago> Everything I see seems to indicate that the price of housing expands to fill the amount of money available. This applies to many many other areas too. The price of anything in short supply expands as far as possible to change consumer surplus into producer surplus. If it were apple juice in short supply more people would start selling apple juice and eventually the price would fall. Presumably in Palo Alto you can't just throw up more flats/houses in 6 months and put them up for sale though
- hobaak 10y agoFolks, this was dismissed as misinformation to public by the city.