5 ms·

The $150,000 number is the cost of the mortgage needed to buy a home the size of the one they rented in Palo Alto [1]. The breakdown was that they rented the ho

by mbreese 10y ago

The $150,000 number is the cost of the mortgage needed to buy a home the size of the one they rented in Palo Alto [1]. The breakdown was that they rented the home with another couple for $6200/mo. If they wanted to buy a similar home, it would cost ~ $2.7M, thus the $12.5k/mo mortgage. They were already renting a place in Palo Alto at ~ $3100/mo. Their problem was that they wanted to start a family and needed more space. Doing so in Palo Alto was prohibitively expensive. I don't think that she was whining about not being able to live in a neighborhood where multi-millionaire lived. It was about being able to establish roots anywhere in the Palo Alto area. It's all but impossible and it will become harder and harder to run a city where all of the labor force needs to be imported (police, teachers, city gov't, etc). I know this is already starting to become an issue with some departments at Stanford where it's very difficult to recruit/keep faculty and postdocs due to the cost of living in the immediate area. [1] https://shift.newco.co/letter-of-resignation-from-the-palo-alto-planning-and-transportation-commission-f7b6facd94f5 https://shift.newco.co/letter-of-resignation-from-the-palo-a...

dekhn 10y ago
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 realistic in PA. 6k is, however.
- lindenksv1 10y ago
  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 and EMTs to get lost, too? They all make less than we do. What happens when they follow your advice?
  - dekhn 10y ago
    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 income, very similar to yours). Based on your response what I am hearing is that you're angry. That's fine, but you're lashing out. For example, you just attacked me, while I provided a data-driven argument that your $150K argument was simply false. It's based, apparently, on your insistence that you must buy, rather than rent. Renting is currently much more affordable than buying in the Bay Area. As for whether the support staff for a city should be able to afford to live in the city they support, that's another argument. I personally do not see any requirement that a city provides affordable housing to its support staff, especially in the form of purchased housing. That would be a major policy change that would have enormous impact.
    - lindenksv1 10y ago
      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.
      - dekhn 10y ago
        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.
        phamilton 10y ago
        Multi-tenant buildings are the key here. Cost of land is inversely proportional to the number of units. Building up, shared outdoor space, etc. all lower cost for owners but are often prohibited by local municipal regulations.
- fortes 10y ago
  $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=5000&bedrooms=4 https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/pen/apa?nh=83&max_price=... From personal experience, as someone who was priced out of Palo Alto this year, it is rare to see a place at that price point in Palo Alto proper, and they tend to be quite run down. The one place available right now is actually in a good location and doesn't look too bad inside, so that's not a bad deal for the location. On the other hand, you can get a great place in Seattle with views for over $1000 cheaper: https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/5723972635.html https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/5723972635.html
  - dekhn 10y ago
    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 value of $150K for a house purchase).
    - Steeeve 10y ago
      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.
- lindenksv1 10y ago
  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 to worry about rent increases and who don't have to worry about pulling their kids out of their school. We see the value of people leaving their kids with homes after they die, not dusty rent checks. We recognize the value of people putting down roots in their community and investing in it. We gave the baby boomers the mortgage interest rate deduction, Prop 13, and the GI bill and numerous other programs to make sure that everyone in the middle class could have a home to call their own. Now you're saying that it was fine for the American dream for boomers to involve home ownership but if a Millennial wants the same benefits then they're "entitled" and "insisting"? The absurd cost of housing in this country and the declining rates of homeownership are directly tied to the massive divergence we're seeing between rich and poor in this country and the shrinking middle class. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-inequality/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...
  - dekhn 10y ago
    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 Area for 25 years, from undergrad to staff engineer at an internet firm. Over the various dot-booms and dot-busts, I saw people moving further from the Bay Area and taking on insane commutes due to the desire to own homes. For example, many Stanford employees purchased in Tracy(!), then experienced massive financial failures when that area depreciated. I'd like to see Prop 13 die in a fire. Unlikely to ever happen. So, as you say, you're moving out of Palo Alto because the costs to buy there are too high. However, Santa Cruz isn't particularly cheap nor is it significantly cheaper than my own area, San Mateo, which has a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto. If you had just said, "$90K/year in an area 30 minute commute to PA", I wouldn't have complained at all. The problem here is insisting on living directly in PA weakens the argument (it's specious) because there is no specific reason for a person to have to live in PA. There are more affordable communities around within 30 minutes commute. I feel like you're insisting that people who support a community must live (and own) in that city. I don't think that's a rational requiment. Again, none of my argument is based on the systemic issues in the Bay Area (or anywhere with a booming economy and a large number of well-capitalized buyers), which I freely admit is a problem.
dekhn 10y ago
$2.7M house in PA -> $1.2M house in San Mateo. less than 30 minute commute (it takes me 20 to go from SM to PA on a moderate traffic day).

by mbreese 10y ago

dekhn 10y ago

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 realistic in PA. 6k is, however.

lindenksv1 10y ago
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 and EMTs to get lost, too? They all make less than we do. What happens when they follow your advice?
- dekhn 10y ago
  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 income, very similar to yours). Based on your response what I am hearing is that you're angry. That's fine, but you're lashing out. For example, you just attacked me, while I provided a data-driven argument that your $150K argument was simply false. It's based, apparently, on your insistence that you must buy, rather than rent. Renting is currently much more affordable than buying in the Bay Area. As for whether the support staff for a city should be able to afford to live in the city they support, that's another argument. I personally do not see any requirement that a city provides affordable housing to its support staff, especially in the form of purchased housing. That would be a major policy change that would have enormous impact.
  - lindenksv1 10y ago
    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.
    - dekhn 10y ago
      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.
      - phamilton 10y ago
        Multi-tenant buildings are the key here. Cost of land is inversely proportional to the number of units. Building up, shared outdoor space, etc. all lower cost for owners but are often prohibited by local municipal regulations.
fortes 10y ago
$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=5000&bedrooms=4 https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/pen/apa?nh=83&max_price=... From personal experience, as someone who was priced out of Palo Alto this year, it is rare to see a place at that price point in Palo Alto proper, and they tend to be quite run down. The one place available right now is actually in a good location and doesn't look too bad inside, so that's not a bad deal for the location. On the other hand, you can get a great place in Seattle with views for over $1000 cheaper: https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/5723972635.html https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/5723972635.html
- dekhn 10y ago
  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 value of $150K for a house purchase).
  - Steeeve 10y ago
    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.
lindenksv1 10y ago
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 to worry about rent increases and who don't have to worry about pulling their kids out of their school. We see the value of people leaving their kids with homes after they die, not dusty rent checks. We recognize the value of people putting down roots in their community and investing in it. We gave the baby boomers the mortgage interest rate deduction, Prop 13, and the GI bill and numerous other programs to make sure that everyone in the middle class could have a home to call their own. Now you're saying that it was fine for the American dream for boomers to involve home ownership but if a Millennial wants the same benefits then they're "entitled" and "insisting"? The absurd cost of housing in this country and the declining rates of homeownership are directly tied to the massive divergence we're seeing between rich and poor in this country and the shrinking middle class. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-inequality/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...
- dekhn 10y ago
  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 Area for 25 years, from undergrad to staff engineer at an internet firm. Over the various dot-booms and dot-busts, I saw people moving further from the Bay Area and taking on insane commutes due to the desire to own homes. For example, many Stanford employees purchased in Tracy(!), then experienced massive financial failures when that area depreciated. I'd like to see Prop 13 die in a fire. Unlikely to ever happen. So, as you say, you're moving out of Palo Alto because the costs to buy there are too high. However, Santa Cruz isn't particularly cheap nor is it significantly cheaper than my own area, San Mateo, which has a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto. If you had just said, "$90K/year in an area 30 minute commute to PA", I wouldn't have complained at all. The problem here is insisting on living directly in PA weakens the argument (it's specious) because there is no specific reason for a person to have to live in PA. There are more affordable communities around within 30 minutes commute. I feel like you're insisting that people who support a community must live (and own) in that city. I don't think that's a rational requiment. Again, none of my argument is based on the systemic issues in the Bay Area (or anywhere with a booming economy and a large number of well-capitalized buyers), which I freely admit is a problem.

dekhn 10y ago

$2.7M house in PA -> $1.2M house in San Mateo. less than 30 minute commute (it takes me 20 to go from SM to PA on a moderate traffic day).