6 ms·

It skips some important points. The cost of living is high due to zoning laws and a lack of building. Subsidizing families' rent will just make existing landlor

It skips some important points. The cost of living is high due to zoning laws and a lack of building. Subsidizing families' rent will just make existing landlords richer. It would just drive rents up further. What is needed to get fewer people bidding on the same unit. If landlords are finding <1 suitable tenants per vacancy then suddenly it becomes a renter's market.

mlmonkey 12y ago
On top of more housing, we need better public transit. Start with running Caltrain every 10 minutes. Change local transit so that it becomes a feeder to/from Caltrain, BART, etc. And make it cheaper.
- johnny_utah 12y ago
  Definitely. This is a pipe dream, but this proposed plan for BART (in 1956) would have been a-ma-zing. Source: http://www.jakecoolidgecartography.com/regional-rapid-transit-bay-area.html http://www.jakecoolidgecartography.com/regional-rapid-transi... Unfortunately, there is absolutely no chance of anything close to that being built in our lifetimes.
- steven2012 12y ago
  I'm usually against taxes in general, but I'm actually for increasing taxes and using that to have a completely free mass transit system across the entire Bay Area. This would provide a tremendous benefit for everyone. The problem is that unions will take advantage of all that money and increase wages and pension benefits for their workers instead of hiring more workers and increasing employment in general. This is what happens when there's an influx of money, it causes inflation.
  - bsder 12y ago
    Note how BART has been expanding down the East Bay over time while Caltrain has made zero progress. The problem is that a lot of rich people live right along the Caltrain line and have been opposing its expansion for decades. <sarcasm>But it's the unions' fault.</sarcasm> Try not swallowing so much propaganda next time.
    - mlmonkey 12y ago
      Caltrain already runs all the way to Gilroy. You can't really extend it much. But you can run it more frequently; and that's where you run into union issues. It's not propaganda that public employee unions are quite resistant to change; just look at MUNI's Union (in SF) for example. But that's a topic for another day. :-)
- nerfhammer 12y ago
  They are planning on electrifying caltrain which makes running a larger number of smaller trains more feasible They're also planning on extending caltrain to downtown and connect with BART there
- RSASecure 12y ago
  yes, public transportation is very important to spread the liveable area beyond commutable distances. That would mean more land to build on. A more expansive and well connected BART network would be very beneficial.
nsnick 12y ago
This may not be too popular, but subsidizing housing for the poor in Silicon Valley will drive up rents for the people in the middle who are not receiving the subsidy.
- benten10 12y ago
  And besides, the subsidies would be crazyyy because of the existing prices. What would help those in need without affecting the prices is building/assigning/requiring certain percentage of new housing projects to include low-income housing (I've mentioned this elsewhere in the thread).
  - orky56 12y ago
    The problem with this is that the low-income housing portion will be artificially lower than market prices forcing the landlord to increase the rent on the other units to make up for it. Once again as the OP mentioned, the middle class gets squeezed out since supposedly market prices do not actually exist to be taken advantage of.
- refurb 12y ago
  This is a great point. Rent control just shifts increasing costs to the newest arrivals. If you were lucky enough to arrive early, you get all the benefit (generally).
rodgerd 12y ago
Public housing is an anethma in the English-speaking world these days, but it's one answer. Mixing public housing/apartments in with private would provide accomodation while also providing a base price.
- yitchelle 12y ago
  I would imagine that silicon valley could draw some positive insights from the public housing scheme in other countries such as Singapore. 80% of the Singaporean population live in public housing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

mlmonkey 12y ago

On top of more housing, we need better public transit. Start with running Caltrain every 10 minutes. Change local transit so that it becomes a feeder to/from Caltrain, BART, etc. And make it cheaper.

johnny_utah 12y ago
Definitely. This is a pipe dream, but this proposed plan for BART (in 1956) would have been a-ma-zing. Source: http://www.jakecoolidgecartography.com/regional-rapid-transit-bay-area.html http://www.jakecoolidgecartography.com/regional-rapid-transi... Unfortunately, there is absolutely no chance of anything close to that being built in our lifetimes.
steven2012 12y ago
I'm usually against taxes in general, but I'm actually for increasing taxes and using that to have a completely free mass transit system across the entire Bay Area. This would provide a tremendous benefit for everyone. The problem is that unions will take advantage of all that money and increase wages and pension benefits for their workers instead of hiring more workers and increasing employment in general. This is what happens when there's an influx of money, it causes inflation.
- bsder 12y ago
  Note how BART has been expanding down the East Bay over time while Caltrain has made zero progress. The problem is that a lot of rich people live right along the Caltrain line and have been opposing its expansion for decades. <sarcasm>But it's the unions' fault.</sarcasm> Try not swallowing so much propaganda next time.
  - mlmonkey 12y ago
    Caltrain already runs all the way to Gilroy. You can't really extend it much. But you can run it more frequently; and that's where you run into union issues. It's not propaganda that public employee unions are quite resistant to change; just look at MUNI's Union (in SF) for example. But that's a topic for another day. :-)
nerfhammer 12y ago
They are planning on electrifying caltrain which makes running a larger number of smaller trains more feasible They're also planning on extending caltrain to downtown and connect with BART there
RSASecure 12y ago
yes, public transportation is very important to spread the liveable area beyond commutable distances. That would mean more land to build on. A more expansive and well connected BART network would be very beneficial.

nsnick 12y ago

This may not be too popular, but subsidizing housing for the poor in Silicon Valley will drive up rents for the people in the middle who are not receiving the subsidy.

benten10 12y ago
And besides, the subsidies would be crazyyy because of the existing prices. What would help those in need without affecting the prices is building/assigning/requiring certain percentage of new housing projects to include low-income housing (I've mentioned this elsewhere in the thread).
- orky56 12y ago
  The problem with this is that the low-income housing portion will be artificially lower than market prices forcing the landlord to increase the rent on the other units to make up for it. Once again as the OP mentioned, the middle class gets squeezed out since supposedly market prices do not actually exist to be taken advantage of.
refurb 12y ago
This is a great point. Rent control just shifts increasing costs to the newest arrivals. If you were lucky enough to arrive early, you get all the benefit (generally).

rodgerd 12y ago

Public housing is an anethma in the English-speaking world these days, but it's one answer. Mixing public housing/apartments in with private would provide accomodation while also providing a base price.

yitchelle 12y ago
I would imagine that silicon valley could draw some positive insights from the public housing scheme in other countries such as Singapore. 80% of the Singaporean population live in public housing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore