[lindenksv1]

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?

[karma_vaccum123]

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

[Steeeve]

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.

[dekhn]

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.

[lindenksv1]

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.

[URSpider94]

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.

[karma_vaccum123]

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

[dekhn]

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.

[lindenksv1]

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.

[dekhn]

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).

[dekhn]

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.

[phamilton]

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.