12 ms·
Microsoft pledges $500M for affordable housing in Seattle area
- CodeCube 8y agomore of this!
- opportune 8y agoIs it a good or a bad thing when multinational corporations step in and take the place of government?
- jim-jim-jim 8y agoBad.
- knodi 8y agoNot sure why you're getting down voted but it is bad because the government is not doing this and we're accepting it.
- andrew_ 8y agoI would wager that it's because there are folks who applaud the private sector for stepping in on a big problem. I would argue it's a general positive when we don't have to rely on government to solve all of our problems.
- sdinsn 8y agoBut now we're relying on Microsoft to solve our problems. How is that any better?
- cronix 8y agoSomething might actually get done
- sdinsn 8y ago> might Exactly. Why put our eggs in MSFT's basket?
- ralusek 8y agoBecause nobody is being forced to fund it, as is the case with the state. And the state would staff the administration of the new construction with pensioned state bureaucrats, whose pensions are already bankrupting California. Unfunded state liabilities from pensions are somewhere between 333 billion and 1 trillion, depending on who you ask. And then once constructed, there would be forces wholly removed from the natural demands of the population, as represented immediately by the encompassing markets, determining how the housing is to evolve over time. People should be much more reserved than they are in terms of handing things over to the state, there is much to be lost.
- sdinsn 8y ago> whose pensions are already bankrupting California That is not true. California has a budget surplus right now...
- King-Aaron 8y agoI tend to agree, but also take the opinion that if the comment above had expanded on this, the reaction wouldn't be as negative
- samatman 8y agoBecause the expectation on HN is that you won’t make content-free posts. It’s not a poll. One is expected to answer “bad, because...”, as you did.
- NeonVice 8y agoIt depends. Do you believe that it is the role of government to build new housing or is it their role to create an environment that encourages new building supply? Is new housing not being built because of government regulation that deters new building or certain types of buildings?
- remarkEon 8y agoBoth? I think in places like SF or Seattle it’s a combination of government regulation and zoning rules, and idle capital. But at the same time I don’t see why government itself can’t invest in building things like transportation infrastructure to support the increased density (assuming density is something we want - I’m not entirely convinced it is). Over the last few decades the default state appears to have been “build up” rather than “build up where needed, and out where you can”. Cities from previous iterations of civilization appear to have done the latter, while we mostly just do the former here in the states (over recent decades). LA could maybe be considered an exception, however it’s zoning rules are draconian and density seems to be the way forward less some major overhaul.
- bobthepanda 8y agoSeattle is in the midst of one of America’s largest transit expansions, to spend $50B+ in 40 years. Pretty much all cities are aggressively zoning around their light rail stations; for example. The suburb of Lynwood has zoning allowing up to 350 feet in height around their stop. The problem is that these things take time, mostly because this isn’t China and Seattle doesn’t have hundreds of billions in Treasuries to do what it wants, nor is it willing to conspire using shady financial vehicles like Chinese local governments.
- icebraining 8y agoWhile the rate has decreased, "sprawl continues to be pervasive and continues to increase" in the majority of US metropolitan areas, and "2010 represents the first time that more people lived in lower density than higher density tracts in metropolitan America": http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=cate http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...
- atwebb 8y agoDepends on if you have to pay rent with company scrip.
- dfischer 8y agoGood - reacts quicker to market demands and is directly incentivized by opportunity therefore creating jobs.
- zanny 8y agoNothing implicitly makes a government faster or slower than a corporation. Corporate charters are practically franchised private statehood where your voting public is your shareholders and they elect a board of directors to represent them. If your corporate charter can be "quick" then so can your constitution. And governments are absolutely incentivized by opportunity. The prosperity of the people is their entire job. Its why you have a state to begin with. If its unable to fulfill that objective, get a new government.
- dfischer 8y agoIn order to be quick you have to be properly incentivized. I disagree that the prosperity of people is a government workers job by choice; thus they won't be incentivized to outperform a corporation. I'm sure there's people that do care about that, but it's certainly not the majority and directly defies individuality.
- bobthepanda 8y agoThis depends on local context. For example, in Singapore civil service has much higher prestige and merit based pay, thus the Singaporean government is one of the most effective in the world.
- dfischer 8y agoYeah, there's definitely room for inspiration and improvement. Looking forward to innovative structures that let us evolve more efficiently.
- mc32 8y agoIt's a bad sign. It's a sign the gov has dropped the ball. Government should be doing this. This is their job, it's in their purview to account for growth and address it, one way or another, but not ignore it or frustrate it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- skookumchuck 8y agoEnjoy! https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/the-disappearing-mass-housing-of-the-soviet-union/518868/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/03/the-disappearing-mass...
- distances 8y agoPerhaps not an opinion shared by everyone, but even Khrushchyovkas would be better than a housing crisis. Affordable housing is a basic need. Building these in scale would lead to a lot of other problems, but if a city is otherwise incapable to accommodate people, then the city gets those other problems.
- Fellshard 8y agoTell that to the city of Gyumri, Armenia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXDDW9WYrWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXDDW9WYrWE
- Novashi 8y agoThe US Government is currently dysfunctional, so at least someone is making affordable housing.
- Analemma_ 8y agoIf this was the Bay Area, I would be inclined to worry, but the governments of Seattle and the surrounding towns, while far from perfect, are not nearly as dysfunctional as San Francisco's. We actually are building tons of new housing, areas are getting upzoned to allow denser construction in areas that previously only allowed single-family units, and there is lots of investment in public transit (i.e. ST3). This seems more like Microsoft chipping in to help out even more, rather than taking it upon themselves to fix a broken government. (Although see my other comment regarding how useful this can actually be in practice)
- sdinsn 8y agoBad- when times get bad (recession) companies will stop doing these things. If people rely on them for important services (like housing), then they'll be even more screwed.
- scarface74 8y agoAnd depending on who is running the government, the government won’t help people who need it either...
- InclinedPlane 8y agoGood for short-term results, bad at the degree to which it indicates our institutions are ineffectual and broken. America is a rich nation, Seattle is a rich city. With reasonable taxation and competent government we could easily maintain decent metropolitan infrastructure and services (mass transit, schools, clean water) as well as provide affordable housing, food security for everyone, etc.
- ralusek 8y agoIt is always a good thing if something can be solved directly by the citizens without the use of force, i.e. state intervention. It is indicative of a prosperous economy, and possibly of high social capital and cohesion. The proper use of the state should really only be as a reluctant override meant to address explicit market failures, such as monopolies and collusion and negative externalities. Unfortunately, that isn't the way that most people view the role of government anymore, and are increasingly content to see it as a consequence-free button for moral authoritarianism.
- ams6110 8y agoI say it's usually good. I think government is usually the most expensive, highest overhead, least competent, and lowest quality way to get anything done.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago> I think government is usually the most expensive, highest overhead, least competent, and lowest quality way to get anything done. Do you have concrete examples? Everything I can think of points to the opposite.
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoThe Department of Defense is probably the canonical example. But closer to the topic, look at the government housing programs. Billions of dollars to build housing projects that do effectively nothing to lower the overall market price of housing, while creating slums by concentrating poverty in specific locations, while actively making the actual problem worse with zoning rules.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago> The Department of Defense is probably the canonical example. Because they outsource to a bunch of private contractors, no?
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> Because they outsource to a bunch of private contractors, no? No. The government contracting process is as broken as anything else, but hurry up and wait, FUBAR and SNAFU did not originate at Lockheed Martin. We don't have major military bases in states with powerful legislators because that's what makes the most strategic sense from a military perspective. The VA healthcare system is not a disorganized mess primarily as a result of contractors. It's a systemic issue with any large bureaucracy, which is why small and local governments are more efficient than large and centralized ones. It's also why small and medium businesses are more efficient than huge conglomerates. And there is no bureaucracy larger than the US government. People like to compare their cash on hand with Apple's, but governments don't hoard cash like corporations do (and corporations only do it because of dumb tax policies). The US federal budget is around six times Apple's market cap, much less their own annual budget.
- skookumchuck 8y agoDepends on whether you prefer to live in Soviet bloc housing or not.
- rectang 8y agoConcentration of power is always bad, no matter where that power is concentrated.
- Synaesthesia 8y agoBad. We’re going from an institution which - at least theoretically - the population has some say in, to one which is completely privately owned and doesn’t have to answer to the public at all.
- aylmao 8y agoNot only does it not answer to the public, it goes a step further-- one that can be sued by it's shareholders if it acts against their interests (ei, yield a profit).
- icebraining 8y agoThey still have to abide by the laws set by the public institution.
- Synaesthesia 8y agoThat’s true. But there are fewer of these regulations and they’re very large powerful entities only interested in profit.
- stale2002 8y agoIt is bad when government is so bad at it's job that it requires companies to do it, yes. But it is a good thing that someone is solving the problem.
- eru 8y agoUsually a good thing. Multinational corporations are typically run very well compared to anything local. See https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/05/multinationals.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2016/05/multinationals.html for a comparison of multinationals' management to local companies. I don't have stats for local government on hand, but anecdotally, it's common for it to be even worse than local companies.
- umeshunni 8y agofrom the Seattle Times version of the article: $475M for loans to housing developers over three years and $25M for resident services
- __jahh 8y agoproblem though is that even though moderate priced housing pays tremendous returns stupid developers will always chase luxury because they can do stupid well. The fact that M$FT will make money off this doesn't stop it from being a tremendously valuable step for someone who happens to be housing insecure in sea-tac
- ldiracdelta 8y agoWhat's this 'tac you speak of. Tacoma is outrageously cheaper than Seattle. 'tac don't have a problem compared to sea'.
- techsupporter 8y ago"SeaTac" is the common name for the airport and also the City of SeaTac, Washington, located next door to Burien. http://www.seatacwa.gov/ http://www.seatacwa.gov/
- ldiracdelta 8y agoI've lived in WA all my life. I know where seatac is. The problem isn't in seatac, it is in Seattle proper. Seatac isn't the correct choice of words. Seattle is. The Tac' of seatac refers to Tacoma and yes I'm playing a game with etymology. The problem is in Seattle, but not if you go south.
- maxsilver 8y ago> The problem is in Seattle, but not if you go south. Tacoma has an average home price of $350k. That means, to afford an average home/condo/apartment, you'd need over a $100k+ salary per year. (Using the 28/36 rule). But the average income per person in Tacoma is ~$37k/yr. That is absolutely a crisis-level problem of massive proportions. The only way anyone can pretend those prices are even vaguely reasonable, is by comparing it to somewhere like Seattle where the crisis is so much worse.
- j15e 8y agoPay more corporate taxes instead and let elected people decide how to spend it for public services?
- code_duck 8y agoI think the appropriate mildly edgy hashtag here is #latestagecapitalism
- ndnxhs 8y agoBit hard for them to decide when they are all on a 1 month forced holiday.
- briandear 8y agoState and local governments aren’t on a holiday and that’s where these types of decisions ought to be handled.
- Analemma_ 8y agoAs great as it is to see this kind of corporate responsibility and acknowledgement of the downsides of local growth, it's not clear to me how Microsoft is supposed to help here. High housing costs are a nasty example of a particular social problem where throwing money at it just doesn't work, even if you're willing to completely take a loss on your investment. To my naïve analysis, if Microsoft just pledges money to build a bunch of housing units, then that throws a wrench in supply/demand, other people pull back on construction to match, and we end up right back where we started. I'm sure there are higher-order effects and the reality is more complicated than this, but I also don't think it changes the fundamental picture much. How is Microsoft supposed to help make more housing available without other developers just canning their own projects and leaving zero net change?
- tfehring 8y agoNearly all of the regional variation in construction costs is attributable to differences in labor costs. This can create a self-reinforcing upward spiral in home prices [0]: > Inasmuch as it means that those working in the construction trades are better off, construction wage growth in the expensive coastal cities is a welcome development, which ought to be celebrated. > However, construction wage growth could also be part of a dangerous, self-reinforcing cycle. Rising construction costs tend to reduce the supply of new housing because they shift marginally-worthwhile residential development into the red.8 This helps raise housing costs, which in turn feeds back into construction wage growth for at least three reasons: > - When housing prices rise, workers require greater compensation to subsist. > -When housing prices rise and the supply of homes is smaller than it would be otherwise, it is harder for people to find suitable homes for sale (and to afford them). This creates a greater incentive for renovation, which exerts upward pressure on labor costs as suggested earlier. > -When housing prices rise, the pool of potential home buyers becomes more financially select, which likely corresponds to higher expectations with respect to homes’ level of finish.9 Once again, this means that more renovation is bound to take place (including home-flipping), exerting even more upward pressure on labor costs. A one-off influx of affordable housing could potentially break that cycle by enabling tradespeople to move to the area. I'm not sure that Microsoft's investment is significant enough to have that effect given the existing deficit in affordable housing in the Seattle area, but the theory's there. [0] https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/whats-up-with-construction-costs https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/whats-up-with-construction-co...
- save_ferris 8y agoThis is great and all, but part of me is really cynical about corporate philanthropy like this. First off, all but $25 of the $500M will be loaned out to developers at below-market interest rates and the other $25 will be donated to related services. Good on Microsoft for committing capital that could be put to other uses, but this isn't a donation; it's philanthropic lending. Depending on the interest rates of these loans, they'll wind up keeping much of that principle. Yes, people will surely benefit from this, but this looks really conservative for such a headline. Corporate taxation is a hot-button issue these days, but one can't help but notice how easy it is to shun government for being wasteful in providing housing services while private industry is being applauded to essentially buy the process of welfare. And while there are heated debates about what major companies should contribute (or avoid contributing) in taxes, can we even agree that affordable housing sponsored by private money is a little contradictory here?
- techsupporter 8y agoFWIW, I completely agree. It is super frustrating that our local governments here, outside of Seattle and a handful of efforts elsewhere in the region, won't make the investments that are needed. But we need those investments, somehow, and I'm willing to let private businesses make them while we also have the public debate over getting our governments to get moving.
- sandworm101 8y agoIt is even more evil than that. Those below-market interest rates will be deducted from MS's tax bill. In a few years, MS will be earning profits from these loans AND the government will be chipping in via the reduction in their corporate income tax. Frankly, given the amount of money each of the big tech companies are sitting upon, they should all be branching out into banking. Maybe charitable loans are a way of doing this without actually going through the hoops of becoming a bank.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Those below-market interest rates will be deducted from MS's tax bill This is true of all charitable giving. They still make less money than if they invested their money at market rates. I don’t see why every good act requires a negative knee-jerk reaction.
- techsupporter 8y agoFrankly, good. If the Eastside cities can't or won't step up with building more affordable housing and public services, then I'm glad Microsoft is willing to kick in its money. It's a shame that the counties and cities in the region, by and large, aren't willing to acknowledge that this is a regional problem but Microsoft putting up the money at least removes the "but we can't afford the taxes or find the money elsewhere" excuse. This isn't the first time Microsoft has put its money where its mouth is for its community. They've done a lot for transit in the region, too. I don't mind so much that they are studiously avoiding the region's most populated city. Not all of the affordable housing and public services needs to be concentrated solely in Seattle. The rest of the region should have these things, from mental health services to public health facilities to shelters to affordable housing. Concentrating them in Pioneer Square around the Union Gospel Ministry isn't the way to go.
- opportune 8y agoI know this will sound very NIMBY, but while I believe Eastside cities should contribute municipal funds to alleviate the affordable housing shortage that is truly a regional problem, I don't know why they need to build those in the Eastside area. The Eastside has, to my knowledge, basically never been a cheap place to live. It was a middle class suburban area that transformed into a very wealthy suburban area with denser parts that are also very wealthy. Maybe some small pockets of people were gentrified out, but what you're talking about seems to basically be just moving the people gentrified out of Seattle into an even wealthier area for some reason. It's also very car centric and spread out, which isn't so great for poor people that don't own cars. Sure the Eastside rail is getting built but that will only cover a limited part of the region. But of course, like I said, they should still help solve the problem monetarily.
- techsupporter 8y agoOne thing I didn't see you address is where you think affordable housing should be built. Do you have any thoughts in this regard?
- 8y ago
- aaronbrethorst 8y agoI'd much rather see Microsoft (and Bill, Steve, the estate of Paul Allen, etc.) pay more in taxes to the state of Washington and have that affordable housing built that way, but this is better than nothing. Good on MS.
- chucksmash 8y agoOne of your sibling comments asked whether this was good or bad. This is the pragmatic answer. I wish the problem was being solved the way I think it should be solved, but I'm still happy it's being addressed. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" applies; we should encourage good behavior rather than taking the chance to be mildly upset about incentives and taxation and all the other angles from which one can be mildly disconcerted by the situation surrounding the action. I'm lacking an idiom here, but I feel like what I want is something like "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" but for mild disappointment and good news, instead.
- sdrothrock 8y ago> pay more in taxes to the state of Washington and have that affordable housing built that way I got lost in the middle here -- does more taxes being paid to the state of Washington directly contribute to more affordable housing being built in Seattle? The closest thing I could find was this: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/housing-trust-fund/ https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/housing/...
- Jach 8y agoWA has no state income tax (corporate or personal), so I can only assume GP's wish is for Seattle to get its way and impose its own income tax despite being against the state constitution. While we're wishing maybe we can go a step further and liberate/extricate Seattle as its own sovereign city-state, or at least as something on par with full-fledged states like Wyoming that can make decisions independent of other states if not independent of the federal union...
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
- tmp092 8y agoI won't claim to know what incentivizes developers to build, but below market interest rates for construction seems like a tiny factor in whether a private developer would choose to build affordable housing vs market rate housing. Does anyone know if this difference in interest rate would actually make it more worthwhile for a developer to build low cost housing vs market rate?
- throwawaysea 8y agoThey really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. I am personally not in favor of more density here because my lifestyle, and those of many I know, is better suited to the lower density we have on the east side. The balance we have now is one of the main reasons many of us choose to live here, in the PNW. It feels to me like this growth will be good for new transplants at the cost of those who have made a life here already.
- femiagbabiaka 8y agoCities change. Populations swell and subside. It would be nice if the places we hold dear could stay the same as we have always known them, but they can’t. If that is what you’re after moving farther away from urban centers will be the key.
- pishpash 8y agoI'm guessing you're a transplant too. Native Seattlites don't want you here either and would prefer the PNW to be a lumber, fishing, and shipyard town. /s
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Kalium 8y ago> They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. You're absolutely right! That's a very real set of problems and a very desirable set of goals you've correctly and wisely identified. With that said, is this something that companies are best positioned to address? Do we think Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook will do the best job possible at building out the smaller, more affordable towns to achieve your laudable goal of increased opportunity and geographic diversity? Could it be possible that there might be other structures, already in place, better able to address this problem? Perhaps in ways that are already designed to be democratic and participatory? Do we want corporate behemoths pushing Seattlization on whichever smaller, more affordable location they choose? Again, you've rightly and wisely identified both very real problems and very real solutions. There just might be some room for nuance around implementation.
- skookumchuck 8y agoIt'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Housing is so short and expensive anywhere near Microsoft HQ that it's a significant factor in hiring. I'm a bit surprised that such corporations don't build dormitories near their campuses suitable for interns and singles.
- lkb2k 8y agothey would love to. zoning.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wornohaulus 8y agoDoes it mean they are buying 25 houses in Seattle area for the company ownership ?? Are they going into property development now ??
- randomacct3847 8y agoAt least in SF, I don’t think financing is the issue. The city blocks projects that developers are begging to develop for years and create additional loopholes that allow NIMBYs to stall projects. At some point projects are stalled for so long that the cost to build increases so much where the project is not a good investment anymore and the project is abandoned.
- raldi 8y agoIn SF, they just make affordable housing illegal to build in most of the city. In fact, they just ban all new apartments: https://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ https://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ No apartments, no affordable housing.
- ggm 8y agoAre they going to be the landlord, or even arms-length invested in the landlord? Or, are they agreeing to fund metro and county housing initiatives which have public boards? I'm not in favour of the former, I prefer the latter, but I could believe its a conversation about "how" and "what works"
- charliebrownau 8y agoWhat no one seems to want to consider is Buy a block of LAND Divide it into FOUR Put 3 tiny homes on 3 sections Each Tiny Home has - - Roof tank water (kitchen) - Gas Stove - Solar System - DC Fridge + DC Lights + DC 24" TV (TV Vesa mounted to wall) - Small front porch - Small Shed - Small Car park (2 door sedan/motobike/scooter) On the 4th segment you have * SHOWER/Bathroom BLOCK connected to GRID WATER+Grid Sewage * LAND LINE Internet that is shared via wifi * 4 big car park Drive way to each place So instead of renting a block of land with 1 story and 3 bedrooms for AUD$355 per week you can rent out THREE 1 bedroom tiny homes for AUD$200 EACH Everyone has piracy and their own space Everyone has internet and its lower shared cost Person that owns the block of land now gets AUD$600 PER WEEK instead of AUD$355 for the same amount of PEOPLE
- hamilyon2 8y agoCan pouring money to buy housing possibly lower prices on housing? I want to understand, because it seems to me that supply and demand works some other way. Perhaps increasing supply by developing tech or fighting regulations will be better way to spend money
- onion2k 8y agoFrom the article; It will fund construction for homes affordable not only to the company’s own non-tech workers, but also for teachers, firefighters and other middle- and low-income residents. Microsoft are increasing the supply of affordable housing by literally paying to build affordable housing. That increase in supply might lower prices, or it might just attract more people to the area and raise demand as well. Either way it makes the area better for Microsoft and its employees.
- acct1771 8y agoThis will create affordable housing for the same reason Bill Gates philanthropic initiatives create a cheap labor force for Microsoft.
- netcan 8y agoThose sorts of issues can be very different depending on the specific market. In some places, the biggest issue for affordable housing is just getting more stock built within the right price bracket. Eg, a city might have plenty of large detached houses, and expensive high-rise residential buildings but not enough of the more affordable type of buildings like "low rise" developments of 60-100sqm flats. For analogy, imagine a world with plenty of iphones, but not enough cheap androids. A €200 phone is a decent phone, affordable and €200 is a viable price for the OEM. Subsidies aren't required. For phones, these market conditions guarantee that the supply will be sufficient. In real estate, they don't. Markets like this will tend to show really price/sqm at the lower end, relative to the higher. Eg a fancy, 250sqm house costs just 2x of an old 65sqm flat even though land and building costs are the same per sqm.
- kosei 8y agoThis line made me snicker: "And Facebook has planned to build 1,500 apartments near its Menlo Park headquarters, with 15 percent to be affordable." So, 85% of the housing created is too expensive to be purchased? Sounds like a pretty poor business model. ;)
- chrisseaton 8y ago‘Affordable’ in this context means ‘to someone on a median income in the area.’ It doesn’t mean nobody could afford them otherwise.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoJust build dorm style apartments for most of your employees and be done with it. Studio apts.
- chrisseaton 8y agoBuild an employee mess!
- onetimemanytime 8y agoBetter than to send the mess to the rest of the public. Like an apartment complex can be required to build parking, tech companies should be forced to provide at least xx% of housing for employees. Just as they bought the land for offices, let them buy land for apartments. Cost of doing bidness :)
- netcan 8y agoHow does this work? Buy/build houses and sell to eligible buyers for less than market? Rent at less than market? How does eligibility work? Is arbitrage a problem?
- yason 8y agoMy first questions exactly. Renting out but giving a more discounted rate the poorer the tenant is probably the only sustainable approach to keep them having a home as living costs just keep rising. Of course, the discount should gradually dissolve as the tenants get better paid jobs to avoid someone moving in poor and keeping the same flat after ten years of career development. Getting raises or better paying jobs would pay off but rent would just eat a bigger portion of the monthly costs until they would be on par with market rates.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoQuestion: what is MSFT's downside? I guess very little, or close to zero. Unless someone commits downright fraud (i.e., take the money and don't build anything--but no one will let them do this.) They 'funding /financing buildings, maybe at lower rates than banks, but then MSFT has so much that a lot of it must be making close to 0%. So they solve a problem of theirs since MSFT is there for the long term, get excellent press with virtually no risk. If they default, MSFT might end up as building owners. Hire someone to manage and sell them when time is right. Maybe lose some on taxes and management fees but that is nothing, relatively speaking.
- Tsubasachan 8y agoSeems to me like a job for the government. And half a billion is a drop in the ocean.
- resalisbury 8y agoHere's how the money is being used (somewhat vague). "Microsoft plans to lend $225 million at subsidized rates to preserve and build middle-income housing in six cities near its Redmond headquarters. It will put an additional $250 million into low-income housing across the region...the remaining $25 million will be grants to local organizations that work with the homeless, including legal aid for people fighting eviction." Here's the projected impact (also somewhat vague). "The Seattle Times reported Wednesday that if the $500 million were put into one project, it would create only about 1,000 units, so instead Microsoft will most likely put smaller amounts in many projects to help build “tens of thousands of units.” Here's the need: "Seattle region needs 156,000 more affordable housing units [today].and will need 88,000 more by 2040 if the region’s growth continues."
- resalisbury 8y agoZoning is one of the big culprits for affordable housing. I'm curious if it would be productive for companies to target zoning laws or if it would create a counter productive backlash.
- stevespang 8y agoWhere is Bezos hiding with his money ? Even after his divorce 500 mil would still be less that 1% of his net worth . . .
- anticensor 8y agoDoor key rehash&software updates: 1 hour lock-in midday next Tuesday
- xtat 8y agoMeanwhile crickets in the bay