6 ms·

A SF school district is trying to solve the teacher housing problem by asking families to rent out rooms in their homes to teachers... https://news.yahoo.com/s

A SF school district is trying to solve the teacher housing problem by asking families to rent out rooms in their homes to teachers... https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162838304.html https://news.yahoo.com/san-francisco-families-asked-loan-162... So - prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student. However, more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either, as teacher pay isn't enough to afford such housing. I suppose below-market housing could be reserved for teachers and other city employees, although then it has little impact on the size of the homeless population... It's all kind of dystopian.

wmfrov 4y ago
Depends on how much more market-rate housing is created, right? Create enough and the market rate goes down
diebeforei485 4y ago
That's Milpitas, not San Francisco.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  But it won't have the Milpitas monster to worry about! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/
elgenie 4y ago
It's a game of musical chairs; there's no solution to 40 years of a multi-thousand annual shortfall in new units that doesn't involve building those units or otherwise making the equivalent housing capacity available.
Manuel_D 4y ago
The idea is that construction barriers are removed so that the normal housing market is cheap enough for teachers to afford. As in, enough housing is built so that a teacher can just browse craiglist and find housing they can afford.
- rhacker 4y ago
  Well, it's still CA, so as soon as people realize there is a house for $250k in the Bay Area, or rental options for sub $1500, they will start moving there again. Not just one house, but even a million new houses will cause people to move there.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    It's really unlikely that an extra million spaces for housing would not change the current market price. But EVEN if this was true that there is someone outside waiting to move back for when prices drop just a little, then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out. More housing is better than less. There are no scenarios where it's worse for market price to build more housing.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out. This is one of the most underrated aspects of the housing shortage. Some of the people harmed by the housing crunch are people paying significant portions of their income in the form of rents. But most are the people who aren't able to move to economically dynamic metros in the first place, and are thus relegated to living in a place with worse job prospects. The latter group has no voice in housing policy, and is effectively disenfranchised in housing politics despite feelings its effects.
  - cheriot 4y ago
    Anyone can visit, but staying here means having a job. The migration to the Bay Area is because cities approved the construction of so many office buildings (and continue to do so).
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  As someone forced to move away from the bay area because of housing costs, as soon as housing comes down many of us expats (who have been able to build a sizable nest egg by NOT living in the bay area) will also compete to return. So plan for enough new units for current need + people forced to leave.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
More housing of any kind is a benefit. It reduces competition. Market rate housing helps everyone. If there is a brand new market rate condo for a meta employee to live in, they won't be competing for a shabby 1 br, and a teacher might afford it.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  It increases competition if people who were forced to commute are given a space without an increase in available units.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Then it still reduces competition for houses within commuting distance of SF.
- psychlops 4y ago
  San Francisco has a building height limit of 40ft. They could build sufficient housing for everyone but have made it impossible.
  - ARandumGuy 4y ago
    You can build a lot of housing under 40ft. There are a lot of housing options in between "single family home" and "skyscraper apartment building".
    - lokar 4y ago
      And most of the land zoned residential is zoned for single family only
      - matteotom 4y ago
        Not anymore, anywhere in CA: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
renewiltord 4y ago
> more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either If we created 10 billion homes priced at market-rate built at present costs, what do you anticipate the market rate would be?
psychlops 4y ago
> prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student. On the plus side, they do qualify for student loan forgiveness and if they stay until retirement, they get a pension. Public employees sacrifice current pay for future security.
paxys 4y ago
You don't build "market rate" or "below market rate" housing. You build housing and let the market figure itself out. There are enough old buildings in the city that will come down in price the moment there are better options available.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  It's crazy how people forget supply and demand concepts the moment we start talking about housing. The argument that building housing is useless because it's often more expensive housing, is absolutely bonkers. It increases supply, it is positive for everyone, even those that can't afford it and it liberates a space for them that would have been taken by that high income person.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    Yup. If I talk about a compression algorithm and claim you can run it multiple times and always get a smaller file out the other end, I'll be instantly reminded of the Pigeon Hole Principle. But then we talk about houses and occupants, and apparently that goes out the window. It's maddening.
  - prottog 4y ago
    People often make the mistake of focusing on the long tail of market failures with the intent of more government intervention to fix them, without thinking about the 98% of times that markets deliver additional wealth to everyone involved.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    I wonder what the impact of investors with bottomless pockets for real-estate is on supply and demand?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If such investors exist wonderful. Keep building housing until the national debt is eliminated! In reality at some point those investors will stop buying, at the point the return begins to diminish.
asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
Just to be clear, they don’t actually expect housing to be rented out to teachers in this way. What you do see in many cities around the bay is teacher specific adu and dwelling permitting. It seems to me the idea is to not actually make more, but to have a fig leaf where they can say to the state that their housing element is in compliance.
JamesBarney 4y ago
The market rate is determined by supply. If you ban the production of new cars, you'll soon find that teachers can't afford a market rate 4 year old Honda either. The whole point of building new housing is that reduces market rate. The easy fix is to let people build more housing, and pay their teachers more.
joe_the_user 4y ago
The solution on the level of markets is pretty simple. San Francisco builds enough units to meet demand. That would involve approving building projects that are very high-density per acre regardless of ostensible affordability. Of course, neither home owners nor developers want this - home owners want to preserve their home values and developers want to build a few luxury condos - both aiming to profit from the housing shortage rather than solving it. The solution is actual public housing on a large scale but naturally the safe forces would work to slander and hold this approach back.
- hex4def6 4y ago
  It's entirely possible that home owners are NIMBYing this due to perceived impacts on their house values. But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. It seems like that would only work if there was a near monopoly on who was allowed / able to build in SF. They make money on building units; not building units is not really benefitting them. Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. That already puts that into "luxury condo" price range. It might be that the ROI might be better for the developers if they decide to spend an extra $100k on premium tile so it really is "luxury". It might be that selling them as non-luxury really isn't profitable. After all, if as a customer you're going to need to spend at least $1.05 million on the unit (break even for developer + 5%), wouldn't you rather get a $1.25 million luxury apartment for not that much more? (1mill + 100k tile + 14% profit). For the developer in my made up scenario, they're making 3x the profit, while you're "only" spending 20% more on the more desirable luxury version. I'm sure if the permitting process were quicker / easier, the barrier to entry for developers of all sizes would be lower. The per-door cost would be lower, and you wouldn't need a massive war chest of cash to ride the 3-year permit process. This would also make the economics on non-luxury units make sense.
  - joe_the_user 4y ago
    But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. I shouldn't have implied there necessarily was anything artificial or conspiratorial involved. I mean, some times there can be but it's quite possible that building a few high priced luxury units is the most profitable decision for an individual builder. Luxury condos cost a lot to build and can be sold for a high markup over costs. A many-unit building for average people is not going to have the same markup so even if you build more units, your total profit can be less. Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. So you're saying regulations push builders to only build luxury housing - which is part of my point. I mean, lots of producers in lots of industries cry about regulations that increase their markup, an increase they pass to the consumer. They cry all the way to the bank about that.
wbsss4412 4y ago
I don’t understand what drives people into thinking that housing is the only thing that isn’t priced based on supply and demand.
acchow 4y ago
What if they doubled teacher pay...?

wmfrov 4y ago

Depends on how much more market-rate housing is created, right? Create enough and the market rate goes down

diebeforei485 4y ago

That's Milpitas, not San Francisco.

ROTMetro 4y ago
But it won't have the Milpitas monster to worry about! https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073393/

elgenie 4y ago

It's a game of musical chairs; there's no solution to 40 years of a multi-thousand annual shortfall in new units that doesn't involve building those units or otherwise making the equivalent housing capacity available.

Manuel_D 4y ago

The idea is that construction barriers are removed so that the normal housing market is cheap enough for teachers to afford. As in, enough housing is built so that a teacher can just browse craiglist and find housing they can afford.

rhacker 4y ago
Well, it's still CA, so as soon as people realize there is a house for $250k in the Bay Area, or rental options for sub $1500, they will start moving there again. Not just one house, but even a million new houses will cause people to move there.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  It's really unlikely that an extra million spaces for housing would not change the current market price. But EVEN if this was true that there is someone outside waiting to move back for when prices drop just a little, then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out. More housing is better than less. There are no scenarios where it's worse for market price to build more housing.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > then now we have at least a million more people that can afford to live in a city close to their work, instead of being forced out. This is one of the most underrated aspects of the housing shortage. Some of the people harmed by the housing crunch are people paying significant portions of their income in the form of rents. But most are the people who aren't able to move to economically dynamic metros in the first place, and are thus relegated to living in a place with worse job prospects. The latter group has no voice in housing policy, and is effectively disenfranchised in housing politics despite feelings its effects.
- cheriot 4y ago
  Anyone can visit, but staying here means having a job. The migration to the Bay Area is because cities approved the construction of so many office buildings (and continue to do so).
ROTMetro 4y ago
As someone forced to move away from the bay area because of housing costs, as soon as housing comes down many of us expats (who have been able to build a sizable nest egg by NOT living in the bay area) will also compete to return. So plan for enough new units for current need + people forced to leave.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

More housing of any kind is a benefit. It reduces competition. Market rate housing helps everyone. If there is a brand new market rate condo for a meta employee to live in, they won't be competing for a shabby 1 br, and a teacher might afford it.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
It increases competition if people who were forced to commute are given a space without an increase in available units.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Then it still reduces competition for houses within commuting distance of SF.
psychlops 4y ago
San Francisco has a building height limit of 40ft. They could build sufficient housing for everyone but have made it impossible.
- ARandumGuy 4y ago
  You can build a lot of housing under 40ft. There are a lot of housing options in between "single family home" and "skyscraper apartment building".
  - lokar 4y ago
    And most of the land zoned residential is zoned for single family only
    - matteotom 4y ago
      Not anymore, anywhere in CA: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

renewiltord 4y ago

> more market-rate housing won't solve the problem either If we created 10 billion homes priced at market-rate built at present costs, what do you anticipate the market rate would be?

psychlops 4y ago

> prospective teachers are expected to go to college, get into debt, get a master's in education, then get a job where they still have to live the life of a broke college student. On the plus side, they do qualify for student loan forgiveness and if they stay until retirement, they get a pension. Public employees sacrifice current pay for future security.

paxys 4y ago

You don't build "market rate" or "below market rate" housing. You build housing and let the market figure itself out. There are enough old buildings in the city that will come down in price the moment there are better options available.

jeromegv 4y ago
It's crazy how people forget supply and demand concepts the moment we start talking about housing. The argument that building housing is useless because it's often more expensive housing, is absolutely bonkers. It increases supply, it is positive for everyone, even those that can't afford it and it liberates a space for them that would have been taken by that high income person.
- function_seven 4y ago
  Yup. If I talk about a compression algorithm and claim you can run it multiple times and always get a smaller file out the other end, I'll be instantly reminded of the Pigeon Hole Principle. But then we talk about houses and occupants, and apparently that goes out the window. It's maddening.
- prottog 4y ago
  People often make the mistake of focusing on the long tail of market failures with the intent of more government intervention to fix them, without thinking about the 98% of times that markets deliver additional wealth to everyone involved.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I wonder what the impact of investors with bottomless pockets for real-estate is on supply and demand?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If such investors exist wonderful. Keep building housing until the national debt is eliminated! In reality at some point those investors will stop buying, at the point the return begins to diminish.

asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago

Just to be clear, they don’t actually expect housing to be rented out to teachers in this way. What you do see in many cities around the bay is teacher specific adu and dwelling permitting. It seems to me the idea is to not actually make more, but to have a fig leaf where they can say to the state that their housing element is in compliance.

JamesBarney 4y ago

The market rate is determined by supply. If you ban the production of new cars, you'll soon find that teachers can't afford a market rate 4 year old Honda either. The whole point of building new housing is that reduces market rate. The easy fix is to let people build more housing, and pay their teachers more.

joe_the_user 4y ago

The solution on the level of markets is pretty simple. San Francisco builds enough units to meet demand. That would involve approving building projects that are very high-density per acre regardless of ostensible affordability. Of course, neither home owners nor developers want this - home owners want to preserve their home values and developers want to build a few luxury condos - both aiming to profit from the housing shortage rather than solving it. The solution is actual public housing on a large scale but naturally the safe forces would work to slander and hold this approach back.

hex4def6 4y ago
It's entirely possible that home owners are NIMBYing this due to perceived impacts on their house values. But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. It seems like that would only work if there was a near monopoly on who was allowed / able to build in SF. They make money on building units; not building units is not really benefitting them. Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. That already puts that into "luxury condo" price range. It might be that the ROI might be better for the developers if they decide to spend an extra $100k on premium tile so it really is "luxury". It might be that selling them as non-luxury really isn't profitable. After all, if as a customer you're going to need to spend at least $1.05 million on the unit (break even for developer + 5%), wouldn't you rather get a $1.25 million luxury apartment for not that much more? (1mill + 100k tile + 14% profit). For the developer in my made up scenario, they're making 3x the profit, while you're "only" spending 20% more on the more desirable luxury version. I'm sure if the permitting process were quicker / easier, the barrier to entry for developers of all sizes would be lower. The per-door cost would be lower, and you wouldn't need a massive war chest of cash to ride the 3-year permit process. This would also make the economics on non-luxury units make sense.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  But I'm not sure you're right about developers wanting to just develop a few luxury condos and artificially restrict the number of units they build. I shouldn't have implied there necessarily was anything artificial or conspiratorial involved. I mean, some times there can be but it's quite possible that building a few high priced luxury units is the most profitable decision for an individual builder. Luxury condos cost a lot to build and can be sold for a high markup over costs. A many-unit building for average people is not going to have the same markup so even if you build more units, your total profit can be less. Per the article, the per-unit costs of all the planning / permitting / construction / land / special interest earmarks make the per-door cost to be the $1 million quoted. So you're saying regulations push builders to only build luxury housing - which is part of my point. I mean, lots of producers in lots of industries cry about regulations that increase their markup, an increase they pass to the consumer. They cry all the way to the bank about that.

wbsss4412 4y ago

I don’t understand what drives people into thinking that housing is the only thing that isn’t priced based on supply and demand.

acchow 4y ago

What if they doubled teacher pay...?