Hey there. I'm Kate Downing. I don't insist on living in Palo Alto at all. See? I'm moving. But what I'm trying to say is that we have a serious problem because people who are integral to our community who SHOULDN'T move can't afford it. You can tell lawyers and engineers to go get lost and they don't HAVE to buy a house in Palo Alto. But are you also going to tell our police, firemen, teachers, city staff, nurses and EMTs to get lost, too? They all make less than we do. What happens when they follow your advice?

I support you Kate but firefighters etc don't deserve a pass on housing costs (I say this as a son of a lifelong firefighter). They all are commuting in to most high cost municipalities anyway and have been doing so for years already.

There is a stack of applications for the Palo Alto dept that is surely a foot high...supply and demand says most of the positions are plenty acceptable to a huge backlog of applicants

As a Palo Alto resident of a little more than a year I completely agree with you.

I understand rents being high because of the cost of housing in general - it costs a great deal of money to pay the property taxes alone.

Let's face it - Palo Alto is a wondrous city. So many great things come out of this area because it's chock full of talent in so many areas - from software developers to financial investors, medical researchers, inventors, lawyers, etc. There's a reason why the cost of housing is high: many people want to live here, and living here affords all kinds of opportunity and inspiration.

But it does need to be managed. Pricing out talented individuals is bad for the future. Families should be able to move into the area to work important jobs at local businesses.

I have several children, and it's a struggle to get by in the area, let alone save for the future. I see so many people that work non-stop in great jobs that are barely making it. The cost of housing is such that it's affordable for people with multiple high incomes and that's just about it.

Many local businesses don't look good, and it's no wonder. How can they possibly bring in workers at retail wages? My neighborhood is full of people sleeping in their cars every day who work at local restaurants. At first I was completely wierded out by the phenomenon, but at this point I understand. They are just trying to get by, and can't drive in during rush hour to prepare for the dinner shift, so they do what they have to do.

The cost of housing in this area is great for some, but it affects the quality of life of many residents and many people who come to the area to work. Palo Alto needs to expand the availability of affordable housing in order to sustain itself.

Other communities have found solutions. In Huntington Beach we had Median Income Housing developed with caps on pricing. There are large facilities in town that look to be unoccupied or sparsely occupied. Surely there is room for high density housing like apartments or condos. Even a hundred units would make a difference and help drive sustainability.

My 2 cents.

My complaint was based on the $150,000 quote, specifically, because it's a specious one. It is not based in fact.

I'm certainly not arguing that Palo Alto or areas around it don't have serious pricing problems caused by policy that restricts growth. I rent in San Mateo (can't afford to buy) and am very frustrated that houses typically cost $1M or more (outside of what I consider affordable, on a dual-professional income, very similar to yours).

Based on your response what I am hearing is that you're angry. That's fine, but you're lashing out. For example, you just attacked me, while I provided a data-driven argument that your $150K argument was simply false. It's based, apparently, on your insistence that you must buy, rather than rent. Renting is currently much more affordable than buying in the Bay Area.

As for whether the support staff for a city should be able to afford to live in the city they support, that's another argument. I personally do not see any requirement that a city provides affordable housing to its support staff, especially in the form of purchased housing. That would be a major policy change that would have enormous impact.

NO ONE is talking about the city providing anyone with housing. This is not about government subsidized housing. It's just about the city allowing people to build housing on the land that they own. Just permitting people to build.

I can't seem to reply to dekhn, so I'm writing here -- the issue is that the city won't allow people to increase density on their lots, for example by building more apartment buildings, or by adding "mother-in-law apartments" in backyards or over garages.

Agreed but lets not oversimplify too much...in San Jose they increased density in many areas quickly and ignored parking and roads...we should be greenlighting projects but not gutting standards. What residents will usually throw back is SCHOOLS. They are afraid already crowded schools will become moreso, and there is nowhere to put new schools

What do you mean, "allow people to build housing on land that they own". What land? The cost of building housing in PA is marginal to the land costs.

You can only build multifamily housing in 3% of the city. It's illegal everywhere else. You can't build more than 3 stories in most places - it's illegal. The supreme cost of housing here comes partially from the fact that you can only build a tiny number of units on land that could otherwise hold much more. So you split the cost of land among, say, 5 condos, and not 20. If you're paying 1/5 of the cost of the land and not 1/20 of the cost of the land when you buy your condo, it's obviously much more expensive.

I'm fine with increased density housing in the peninsula. But, this is mainly going to help developers (who are already rich). You'd have to build skyscrapers not multifamily units to address this problem (the area is intensely hot).

Again, my only beef is on the $150K quote from your interview (and your requirements for "walkable to downtown" and "kids can bike on the street"). I think your argument would be much stronger if you backed off on that, and cited a more reasonable compromise (living 30 minutes from PA).

Palo Alto traffic is already really, really dense. Building a lot more housing, even if it's close to downtown/transit, is going to increase traffic tremendously. In addition to building this housing, the city would need to improve its road throughput. This probably would have to include removing the various one-way barriers in the city that currently preclude optimal traffic flow.

Multi-tenant buildings are the key here. Cost of land is inversely proportional to the number of units. Building up, shared outdoor space, etc. all lower cost for owners but are often prohibited by local municipal regulations.

Yes, I can rent. I can rent until I die. But how bizarre is it that you are telling me and everyone else who isn't wealth enough to have bought a house yet that we "insist" on buying and we should be happy to rent forever when we spent decades telling the baby boomers the exact opposite? As a country, we recognize the wealth building aspect of home ownership. We recognize the stability it gives people who don't have to worry about rent increases and who don't have to worry about pulling their kids out of their school. We see the value of people leaving their kids with homes after they die, not dusty rent checks. We recognize the value of people putting down roots in their community and investing in it. We gave the baby boomers the mortgage interest rate deduction, Prop 13, and the GI bill and numerous other programs to make sure that everyone in the middle class could have a home to call their own.

Now you're saying that it was fine for the American dream for boomers to involve home ownership but if a Millennial wants the same benefits then they're "entitled" and "insisting"?

The absurd cost of housing in this country and the declining rates of homeownership are directly tied to the massive divergence we're seeing between rich and poor in this country and the shrinking middle class. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...

Hey, I think you're being unfair here, attributing a wide range of beliefs to me that I never stated, nor do I believe. That's really unfair. I said in another post: I hear that you're angry, but it's not OK to lash out or claim that I'm arguing something I'm not.

Anyway, with regards to home ownership: I'm personally of the belief that home ownership has been massively oversold as a benefit. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, from undergrad to staff engineer at an internet firm. Over the various dot-booms and dot-busts, I saw people moving further from the Bay Area and taking on insane commutes due to the desire to own homes. For example, many Stanford employees purchased in Tracy(!), then experienced massive financial failures when that area depreciated.

I'd like to see Prop 13 die in a fire. Unlikely to ever happen.

So, as you say, you're moving out of Palo Alto because the costs to buy there are too high. However, Santa Cruz isn't particularly cheap nor is it significantly cheaper than my own area, San Mateo, which has a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto.

If you had just said, "$90K/year in an area 30 minute commute to PA", I wouldn't have complained at all. The problem here is insisting on living directly in PA weakens the argument (it's specious) because there is no specific reason for a person to have to live in PA. There are more affordable communities around within 30 minutes commute. I feel like you're insisting that people who support a community must live (and own) in that city. I don't think that's a rational requiment.

Again, none of my argument is based on the systemic issues in the Bay Area (or anywhere with a booming economy and a large number of well-capitalized buyers), which I freely admit is a problem.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, I personally can go live 30 minutes away. So how far away should the teachers live, then? The police? Because if I can afford San Mateo, then that means they largely can't. So where are they going? Is it acceptable for them to be coming up to PA from Gilroy? Tracy? Stockton? At what point do we say that we've created a ridiculous system in which people are needlessly spending years of their lives in traffic and throwing rent money in the toilet all because we can't build some more apartment building next to our jobs centers? I'm not insisting that city work live or own in PA, I'm highlighting that they can't own anywhere near PA, since, as you state, even 30 minutes out of PA is where two-income professionals can afford, not them.

101 to Gilroy will often be faster and saner than 17 to Santa Cruz... sorry but you are in for some serious commute pain. Even people who only need to go as far as Summit Road eventually crack. 17 was never designed for commute traffic

Simply put, in your situation I would head to Texas. Sucks, but Santa Cruz is also gentrifying and you are already too late to catch a break there. You fought the good fight, there are other great places to live.

I would be on suicide watch if I had to take 17 every day. It is beyond awful and every day there is some lane-closing accident etc. The State will discourage more coastal development: 17 will never be improved...to do so would mean more development in precisely the areas the State wants to protect....coast and redwood forests

$5k / month definitely does not get you a nice 4 bedroom in Palo Alto. Maybe in East Palo Alto, but that is a very different place in terms of quality of life, safety, and schools.

Edit: I decided to check, and there is one place in Palo Alto right now with 4 bedrooms at that price https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/pen/apa?nh=83&max_price=...

From personal experience, as someone who was priced out of Palo Alto this year, it is rare to see a place at that price point in Palo Alto proper, and they tend to be quite run down. The one place available right now is actually in a good location and doesn't look too bad inside, so that's not a bad deal for the location.

On the other hand, you can get a great place in Seattle with views for over $1000 cheaper: https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/apa/5723972635.html

I see plenty of units for rent in Palo Alto in this price range. Not East Palo Alto, Palo Alto. Also, don't just check Craigslist- that only includes a very limited number of rentals in that price range; other rental searches show a lot more examples.

[EDIT: I had incorrectly filtered my search. The price break is at $6K for a 4 bedroom (at least 4 units) not $5K. However, that is still well under half of the quoted value of $150K for a house purchase).

I have looked for a year and a half at 4 bedrooms in Palo Alto for under $5k / month - the caveat being that I have pets.

I have yet to see anything pop up other than where I currently live. It was available for all of three hours.

The upside is that if I were to leave the area, I would be able to provide my landlord with acceptable tenants quickly.