The teachers, police and fire fighters all moved out a long time ago.

Isn't it a very unhealthy thing for a "community" to be protected and serviced by people who do no longer live there? Who get pushed out further and further from it?

A city, where you have separate classes of homeowners and all the service personal commuting in sounds pretty dystopian to me.

The problem is that they continue to be pushed out further and further from their jobs every year because cities like Palo Alto keep adding thousands of jobs and almost no housing. That means professionals like me get pushed out of PA, move somewhere cheaper, and end up pushing out people that make less. All of these things are tied together and at the end of the domino what you get is homelessness which we've seen spike in the last 5 years.

Or move the jobs out of ridiculously high COL areas?

An area of land has a carrying capacity dictated by the will of the people who live there through their votes. Why fight it when you can simply move work elsewhere?

Industries are successful when they cluster. It's why you see entertainment in LA, insurance in Chicago, biotech in North Carolina, banks in NY, and think tanks and defense contractors in DC. As we move away from manufacturing and into a knowledge economy, being able to quickly exchange and improve on ideas with other people becomes more and more valuable. It's why the entire world is seeing a massive movement toward urbanization. We are not going to see high tech companies set up in places with few potential employees, no research universities, no investors, and no potential partners. It's simply not going to happen even if it looks like the easy way out. If you consider your own fortunes and you consider joining a young up and coming company that is risky because it has a high chance of failure, I think you'll find you are much more comfortable with that risk if your town has hundreds of other employers for you to go to afterwards, rather than just a small handful. The Internet does not and cannot replace the connections you form by accidentally meeting people at coffee shops or parties. Knowing and seeing people on the street in real life has more value and builds more trust than a text message. Do you think that calling your mom is the same thing as visiting her in person? Do you think you could be a good parent via Skype? Of course not. So why do you think that business relationships are any different?

> Do you think that calling your mom is the same thing as visiting her in person? Do you think you could be a good parent via Skype? Of course not. So why do you think that business relationships are any different?

Because familial relationships are not transactional in the same way that business relationships are?

Business relationships are also relationships. The first people a small company hires are the people they're friends with or friendly with. The people who invest in you are more likely to be your social acquaintances or friends. You won't even get a meeting with an investor in many cases unless you have a common connection. Partnerships are formed all the time between people who also are on the same soccer team, etc. People in business also have people they like and that they don't like and that they're friends with outside of work. I have coworkers, but I also go to their BBQs and their birthday parties - they're still human beings. When people are entrusting each other with the fates of their companies, their employees, and their own personal wealth, they need a high degree of trust.

You sound like someone who has never actually had to work in a multinational company before or with remote team members. Anyone who has can tell you that things are much easier when co-workers know each other personally and become friendly with each other than when they're just strangers to you on the other end of the email. It changes how you respond to them.How likely you are to misunderstand them. How likely you are to respond with kindness or terseness. And it changes how you feel about your job in general. When you go into work and you like the people you work with and you consider yourself their friend, you're far more likely to like your job overall and stay there. If you treat your entire work life as a "transaction" then you're far less likely to be happy with your work life.

> Why fight it when you can simply move work elsewhere?

You can't really do that. You underestimate the powerful network effect Silicon Valley has on the tech industry. Almost all of the investors are here, and many of the world's best software engineers choose to live here and will not move elsewhere for work. There are only a few other cities that have a lot of software jobs and also a large pool of software talent, and they also have a high cost of living -- NYC, Boston, and Seattle come to mind.

Go remote. High quality engineers, project managers, designers, etc can be had all around the world, and if you're seeing a drop in team or employee performance from working remotely, you're not managing properly.

Your argument about investors and quality developers only being in SFBA is a strawman. There are successful startups all over the world. Unicorns? Probably not, but that's a perception issue, not a quality issue (current unrealistic valuations will continue to come back down to Earth)

The number of orgs supporting remote, even fully remote, grows all the time: https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job#companies... ; if an employee chooses to expose themselves to outrageous housing expenses due to the employer's ability to externalize this cost to the employee (with no penalty to the employer, because "that's just the way it is"), this will never change.

> Your argument about investors and quality developers only being in SFBA is a strawman.

That was not my argument. I said most, or "almost all," not all. And that's true! Even the NYC startups have to come to the Bay Area to meet with VCs.

Having a founder fly out every week is still cheaper than building a startup in the Bay Area as soon as you leave the 3 people in one room stage.

The reason why it happens is the same reason why VC have historicly had negative returns; VC's as an industry make most of their money by convincing investors to part with there money not from actual returns. As such they like having a dog and pony show in the area while they try and fleece more people.

This sets up boom and bust cycles and many market distortions. As VC's still want positive returns it's just not their #1 goal.

The weather man. You get to 'live' almost twice as many hours because of the weather. Add top companies, upcoming companies, jobs, schools, colleges, city stuff, nature stuff, Sports and you just can't beat it. After all you only live once.

Huh? When I lived in SF all daylight hours were spent in the office...

This is the real answer.

The problem is that the large global companies like Facebook and Google are extracting an unnatural amount of money and that's flowing into the Bay Area, and translating into high-paying engineer jobs. The problem is all of the great jobs are landing in the Bay Area, and in the age of the Internet that just doesn't make any sense anymore.

These large global companies need to spread that around the US and move jobs around to other areas, so that young people can get exciting jobs in lower cost areas. This will take off the burden off the Bay Area, and ease the pressure of housing prices.

Indeed. but it's also unreasonable to expect that homeowners in a city should not be able to decide how much building they want to allow in their city. I mean, it's a Bay wide problem, why can't all the building be done right outside Palo Alto? why does Palo Alto have to shoulder the solution to this problem? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I certainly can understand current homeowners. They want to keep their city a certain way. Why can't they ?

> Indeed. but it's also unreasonable to expect that homeowners in a city should not be able to decide how much building they want to allow in their city

How far away does said land need to be before you think current homeowners shouldn't have a say anymore? Should someone who lives on the border of Palo Alto and another city be able to prevent housing being built in that other city, or just in Palo Alto? It's pretty arbitrary.

The people who are trying to prevent housing being built today are the same people who benefited from lots of new housing being built during the 1960s-1980s. Why should they have the right to prevent other people from doing what they themselves did? Should the Palo Alto residents in the 1960s-1980s have been able to prevent the newcomers at that time? I suspect very few current residents would agree with that, which is hypocritical.

I think there is a much simpler way to deal with this -- if land is zoned for housing, allow housing to be built. If some rich guy in Palo Alto wanted to control what happened on that land, he should have bought it. Why should anyone be able to veto the development of housing on land they don't own, if it is zoned for housing?

so, should a town be allowed to decide what kind of zoning it wants to have, or should it be decided by a decree from Federal government? So, suppose people in a town decided they want their town to be a town of 2 story single family homes. Should they be allowed to make that decision or not? Suppose all of New York decides to move to Palo Alto within the next 5 years. Should current homeowners in Palo Alto have the ability to decide how much housing and what kind of housing should be built to accommodate that demand?

It is unreasonable for the government to limit housing. It directly causes economic segregation. Only the wealthiest get the homes allowed by law while everyone else gets pushed further out. The market does not do this. Our segregation laws do.

If it were legal to build fourplexes anywhere in Palo Alto, merely wealthy families would be able to outbid some of the insanely wealthy with their four rent payments combined. For the most part, single family homeowners can't actually afford single family homes in such desirable locations, but our laws make it illegal for middle class families to outbid the wealthy the way they always have: using less land.

This is an obvious injustice, and the people who insist on laws that exclude others will soon find themselves in our history books. Stop letting Dixiecrats call themselves progressives.

"It is unreasonable for the government to limit housing" for which government? federal, state, local? Is it really that unreasonable for homeowners in a town to exercise some measure of control over their own town?

> I mean, it's a Bay wide problem, why can't all the building be done right outside Palo Alto?

I mean, climate change is a worldwide problem, why can't all the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions be done outside the US?

so you think that a town should have no say whatsoever in deciding what should be built in its borders? By this analogy ?