3 ms·

"Bay Area home prices see largest May-to-June drop on record" https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/26/bay-area-home-prices-see-largest-may-to-june-drop-on-record

"Bay Area home prices see largest May-to-June drop on record" https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/26/bay-area-home-prices-see-largest-may-to-june-drop-on-record/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/26/bay-area-home-prices-...

shaburn 4y ago
Horrible cherry picking. Take the average family income in the city and go from there. Also, there is an exceptional dirth of supply relative to the transactions as a result of rapid fed rate increases; with real estate always being a slow mover in reflecting market prices.
tptacek 4y ago
That's nice. Go to Zillow right now and search for properties in Palo Alto. Set no minimum, and then set a $500k maximum (the lowest Zillow will let you set for Palo Alto). See what you get. Then try $600k. Still nothing! Keep dialing it up until you find something.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  Why does every neighborhood and city have to have $500k houses? Is there some sort of right to live in Palo Alto that I’m not aware of? Even well off people have neighborhoods they can’t afford to move in to - that’s the way it works.
  - pcwalton 4y ago
    We live in a democracy in which most people think that the government should step in to ensure commodities necessary for survival, like housing or food, remain affordable. Given that in California (and many other places) every community severely restricts multi-family housing, the state has to force some otherwise-unwilling municipalities to zone for denser residential. It would be unfair for the state to deliver mandates to some cities while letting the richest places, such as Palo Alto, off the hook. In other words: it'd be one thing if it were just Palo Alto that were unaffordable, but because it's a statewide problem, fairness demands that every city should chip in to the solution.
    - shaburn 4y ago
      " in which most people think that the government should step in " ! Really? Proof? Housing is affordable; just not the housing you'd like. Food is inflating but starvation in the US is rare. Considering California's housing costs are astronomical compared to the rest of the US, isn't its approach to restriction a sign of the model working? If not why is there so much market based demand driving up the prices? And since many people can and do leave the state as a result of being priced out, where is the "statewide problem"? This sounds more like an opinionated list of the way you wish things were. Also makes me curious how much you have vested in the state / community. As things are increasingly so, when in California, do as the ("Romans").
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

shaburn 4y ago

Horrible cherry picking. Take the average family income in the city and go from there. Also, there is an exceptional dirth of supply relative to the transactions as a result of rapid fed rate increases; with real estate always being a slow mover in reflecting market prices.

tptacek 4y ago

That's nice. Go to Zillow right now and search for properties in Palo Alto. Set no minimum, and then set a $500k maximum (the lowest Zillow will let you set for Palo Alto). See what you get. Then try $600k. Still nothing! Keep dialing it up until you find something.

happyopossum 4y ago
Why does every neighborhood and city have to have $500k houses? Is there some sort of right to live in Palo Alto that I’m not aware of? Even well off people have neighborhoods they can’t afford to move in to - that’s the way it works.
- pcwalton 4y ago
  We live in a democracy in which most people think that the government should step in to ensure commodities necessary for survival, like housing or food, remain affordable. Given that in California (and many other places) every community severely restricts multi-family housing, the state has to force some otherwise-unwilling municipalities to zone for denser residential. It would be unfair for the state to deliver mandates to some cities while letting the richest places, such as Palo Alto, off the hook. In other words: it'd be one thing if it were just Palo Alto that were unaffordable, but because it's a statewide problem, fairness demands that every city should chip in to the solution.
  - shaburn 4y ago
    " in which most people think that the government should step in " ! Really? Proof? Housing is affordable; just not the housing you'd like. Food is inflating but starvation in the US is rare. Considering California's housing costs are astronomical compared to the rest of the US, isn't its approach to restriction a sign of the model working? If not why is there so much market based demand driving up the prices? And since many people can and do leave the state as a result of being priced out, where is the "statewide problem"? This sounds more like an opinionated list of the way you wish things were. Also makes me curious how much you have vested in the state / community. As things are increasingly so, when in California, do as the ("Romans").
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]