4 ms·

No, but Palo Alto is in trouble if all the teachers, firemen, government workers, etc. start moving to more affordable places. The can't live on technology comp

by runholm 10y ago

No, but Palo Alto is in trouble if all the teachers, firemen, government workers, etc. start moving to more affordable places. The can't live on technology companies alone.

chii 10y ago
so why not up the salaries of those professions until people stop moving out and start moving in? Market forces _should_ be used to equalize/stablize, rather than the hubris of trying to control the market via subsidies/indirect incentives. More often than not, those backfire.
- jrockway 10y ago
  I think that's what's gotten us into trouble to begin with. There are fewer houses in the Bay Area than the number of people with extremely good salaries. If you raise everyone's salary, people will outbid each other on housing, and the prices go up. The opportunity the government has is to step in and buy housing now, while prices are what they are, and then allocate them while ignoring the capitalist desire to sell/rent to the highest bidder. Their shareholders do not expect 10% YoY growth, after all.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > I think that's what's gotten us into trouble to begin with. There are fewer houses in the Bay Area than the number of people with extremely good salaries. Why not simply allow to increase the density (say skyscrapers) by chaning the zoning regulations to solve the obvious issues? I mean: If you can pass a law for subsidiaries one can also pass a law to change the zoning regulations.
    - abritinthebay 10y ago
      Well yes, but if it was THAT simple (as those things have to, generally, be voted on by elected representatives) then it would have been done already. But yes, that's the real solution: and it's not happening at all in the Bay Area. The Bay is 40,000 units under what it would take to level prices (not reduce, level) and people are still protesting "ruining the character of neighborhoods" by building. I get wanting character or style... but legislate that, not less density.
      - jrockway 10y ago
        "ruining the character of their overperforming investments" is what they should say. But yeah, this is where regulation is needed, because the financial incentives are to let the market saturate like it is now. If you own property and rent it out, you certainly don't have to keep it well-maintained. What is your tennant going to do, move out? To where? I'm almost tired enough of this situation to move away from New York. (I say after installing my window A/C units this morning. What year is it!?)
        abritinthebay 10y ago
        I'm a little more charitable about it than that - neighborhoods often do have a certain character and vibe. Putting a really ugly or cheap building in the middle can ruin that. It's great when large building projects take style and such into account as it makes the neighborhood nicer AND the new building nicer, usually. I'm in that situation with a new shopping center just a few blocks from me: it's going to be really nice and add to the area while still being a massive new set of buildings and stores. However people are dumb and selfish so often have a kneejerk reaction and try to block any development for arbitrary reasons (like height)
- fma 10y ago
  That would make it worst. Supply and demand only works if you can increase or decrease both. By increasing people's wages...demand goes up (more people can afford it). Housing prices go up because there's no increase in supply, and someone gets squeezed out.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
So, let Palo Alto fail. There are thousands of shuttered towns and cities around the country because they failed.
burfog 10y ago
Eh, why not? Suppose you don't want to just pay more for these services, allowing those people to live in Palo Alto. OK, run the services from far away. If that makes the service bad, then home values will drop. For example, the firemen can be based out of the Central Valley. You'd better build with concrete and steel, because the service will be slow. That works for school too. Put the kids on a bus. Perhaps people with kids should leave the area. See? There are options. Pay more, or get bad service. You can totally have a city with pure technology companies, just as you can have one with only retired rich people. I suggest a mix: pay more for some things, and run other things from far away.
qihqi 10y ago
East Palo Alto is only a bridge away.

by runholm 10y ago

No, but Palo Alto is in trouble if all the teachers, firemen, government workers, etc. start moving to more affordable places. The can't live on technology companies alone.

chii 10y ago

so why not up the salaries of those professions until people stop moving out and start moving in? Market forces _should_ be used to equalize/stablize, rather than the hubris of trying to control the market via subsidies/indirect incentives. More often than not, those backfire.

jrockway 10y ago
I think that's what's gotten us into trouble to begin with. There are fewer houses in the Bay Area than the number of people with extremely good salaries. If you raise everyone's salary, people will outbid each other on housing, and the prices go up. The opportunity the government has is to step in and buy housing now, while prices are what they are, and then allocate them while ignoring the capitalist desire to sell/rent to the highest bidder. Their shareholders do not expect 10% YoY growth, after all.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > I think that's what's gotten us into trouble to begin with. There are fewer houses in the Bay Area than the number of people with extremely good salaries. Why not simply allow to increase the density (say skyscrapers) by chaning the zoning regulations to solve the obvious issues? I mean: If you can pass a law for subsidiaries one can also pass a law to change the zoning regulations.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    Well yes, but if it was THAT simple (as those things have to, generally, be voted on by elected representatives) then it would have been done already. But yes, that's the real solution: and it's not happening at all in the Bay Area. The Bay is 40,000 units under what it would take to level prices (not reduce, level) and people are still protesting "ruining the character of neighborhoods" by building. I get wanting character or style... but legislate that, not less density.
    - jrockway 10y ago
      "ruining the character of their overperforming investments" is what they should say. But yeah, this is where regulation is needed, because the financial incentives are to let the market saturate like it is now. If you own property and rent it out, you certainly don't have to keep it well-maintained. What is your tennant going to do, move out? To where? I'm almost tired enough of this situation to move away from New York. (I say after installing my window A/C units this morning. What year is it!?)
      - abritinthebay 10y ago
        I'm a little more charitable about it than that - neighborhoods often do have a certain character and vibe. Putting a really ugly or cheap building in the middle can ruin that. It's great when large building projects take style and such into account as it makes the neighborhood nicer AND the new building nicer, usually. I'm in that situation with a new shopping center just a few blocks from me: it's going to be really nice and add to the area while still being a massive new set of buildings and stores. However people are dumb and selfish so often have a kneejerk reaction and try to block any development for arbitrary reasons (like height)
fma 10y ago
That would make it worst. Supply and demand only works if you can increase or decrease both. By increasing people's wages...demand goes up (more people can afford it). Housing prices go up because there's no increase in supply, and someone gets squeezed out.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

So, let Palo Alto fail. There are thousands of shuttered towns and cities around the country because they failed.

burfog 10y ago

Eh, why not? Suppose you don't want to just pay more for these services, allowing those people to live in Palo Alto. OK, run the services from far away. If that makes the service bad, then home values will drop. For example, the firemen can be based out of the Central Valley. You'd better build with concrete and steel, because the service will be slow. That works for school too. Put the kids on a bus. Perhaps people with kids should leave the area. See? There are options. Pay more, or get bad service. You can totally have a city with pure technology companies, just as you can have one with only retired rich people. I suggest a mix: pay more for some things, and run other things from far away.

qihqi 10y ago

East Palo Alto is only a bridge away.