The faster local control is taken away from these people the better.
I live in Palo Alto (coincidentally in the area pictured).
Hopefully one day something like SB50 will pass.
My preference would be policy targeting prop13. Basically if you fail to build X amounts of new housing (where X is some large value) your property tax goes up 20% per year until it’s at market rate.
If you’re going to constrain supply for you own benefit you should at least have to pay the costs you force on everyone else.
May I ask what’s your preference for living in Palo Alto? Milpitas or Fremont is affordable. There is also Newark. It’s not like we are running out of space in Bay Area. Technically it’s all Bay Area.
In addition to the long commute, those areas are still expensive, not as nice, schools aren't as good, etc.
It's like telling someone who lives and works in Santa Monica to live in Anaheim 'because it's all technically LA'.
Yeah you can always have massive sprawl, horrible commutes, and really inefficient infrastructure. Which leads to a worse outcome for everyone except the people that already own in Palo Alto that bought decades ago, pay no property tax, and restrict supply to protect their 3M dollar house valuation and 1000% return on that.
We should build more housing in all of these locations, but Palo Alto is one of the worst offenders for blocking new housing and keeping people out.
isnt it counter intuitive to want a 'nicer' place for cheap?
people of PA pay property tax and huge amounts of parcel taxes. they pay massive amounts as parcel tax and bonds to run their schools. you dont know because you dont own property there. they also built infrastructure, the roads and schools and have public utilities that is run by the city of PA itself. a rarity in the bay area. and that makes them sustainable and greener than most bay area cities. and they did this before silicon valley moved in and new residents want to change the city they built.
palo alto existed before start up boom began. people who live there are invested. people who rent have no vested interest in the cities. one day, they'd work here and pick up and move to nyc or austin or utah the next year.
you dont demolish and rebuild your home everytime a guest drops by, do you? you set up a couch and make them comfortable. it's still your home and not the guests', right? same thing. the new tech crowd did nothing to build PA. it is rich of people who own no property, havent set roots, havent raised their families and built infrastructure to demand that those who have been doing that for decades pay more taxes. renters dont pay tax. property owners do. if they pay more taxes, dont you think it will be passed down as higher rent making the whole area more and more unaffordable?
why does anyone think they can walk into the obviously most desirable zipcode and deserve to own a home there when people who have been living there for decades are asked to pay more to accomodate the newbies? sounds like colonisation/gentrification. if it happens in oakland, people wouldn back off. because it's palo alto, the residents are villains?
> "isnt it counter intuitive to want a 'nicer' place for cheap?"
Not "cheap", but not $4M. 500k? $1M? Whatever price you paid when you bought in?
> "people of PA pay property tax"
The issue I have is that they don't - not really. If they paid property tax on their house's market value then I'd actually have a lot less of an issue with it. They want to set local policy and they're willing to pay the market rate tax on it, fine. As it stands most are paying next to nothing compared to their new neighbors.
> "one day, they'd work here and pick up and move to nyc or austin or utah the next year."
Because terrible housing policy is making it impossible to set down roots here. I'd like to stay.
> "the new tech crowd did nothing to build PA. it is rich of people who own no property, havent set roots, havent raised their families and built infrastructure to demand that those who have been doing that for decades pay more taxes."
Again, because the housing costs prevent us from buying in and the refusal to build new housing keeps the price astronomically high. Also the 'new tech crowd' has been here for decades at this point and does represent a large part of the community.
> "if they pay more taxes, dont you think it will be passed down as higher rent making the whole area more and more unaffordable?"
If they have to pay the insane tax they're forcing on everyone else, then maybe they'd be a little less resistant to increasing housing supply.
> "why does anyone think they can walk into the obviously most desirable zipcode and deserve to own a home there when people who have been living there for decades are asked to pay more to accomodate the newbies? sounds like colonisation/gentrification. if it happens in oakland, people wouldn back off. because it's palo alto, the residents are villains?"
People in Palo Alto have a black lives matter signs outside of their house while at the same time leverage local control to block any new supply and prevent anyone who isn't super rich from buying in. When they themselves have benefited from insane monetary return on their own property, could never have bought in today, and pay relatively nothing compared to their new neighbors in financial support for their own community.
They basically won the housing lottery (where the zoning laws were explicitly racially skewed historically).
The residents are villains because they've skewed the entire thing in their own favor. They've gotten massive returns on their house value, they prevent new housing to keep prices high for other people, they pay relatively no property tax on that value. The entire economy has been built from people starting companies that have driven that value for them and the people that have done that have to pay rent to the people that just happened to be here.
Also in Oakland it's the opposite, people that have lived there are getting priced out of their own community. In Palo Alto it's people that live there keeping prices high to price new people out. Both issues are solved by building more housing.
It's the hypocrisy that gets to me, I'd rather the people just said "we don't care about anyone else, but ourselves and the people already here - we don't want anyone else to join unless they're extremely rich and we have skewed all local policy in our favor to guarantee that outcome" and stop with the self-righteous political nonsense.
1. > The issue I have is that they don't - not really. If they paid property tax on their house's market value then I'd actually have a lot less of an issue with it. [..]
Nobody gets away without paying property taxes. This is literally an ignorant statement. I don’t know how I can take anything you say seriously after you say something like this.
Property taxes are not based on market value. It is based on sales price. When the property is sold, the new sale price will reflect market value. Property taxes are Ad Valoreum taxes. It is not on speculative market value of an asset that hasn’t been sold yet.
It seems like your real problem is that seniors have the security of the homes they built and lived their lives.
Why should they pay as much as their new neighbors? Are you being paid as much as these seniors were paid 30 years ago when their mortgages kicked in?
2. If you’d like to stay, you can’t do it at the cost of kicking someone older out. And making them pay for it.
Put simply, you are not wealthy enough to afford Palo Alto. Move to Newark. It’s a nice area. You are always move up the property ladder when you can afford Palo Alto.
3. > Again, because the housing costs prevent us from buying in and the refusal to build new housing keeps the price astronomically high. Also the 'new tech crowd' has been here for decades at this point and does represent a large part of the community.[..]
That isn’t true. Many tech employees have purchased and moved into Bay Area homes that are affordable on their paychecks.
4. > If they have to pay the insane tax they're forcing on everyone else, then maybe they'd be a little less resistant to increasing housing supply.
What ‘insane tax’ are you paying as a renter? If a new property owner, you pay the same percentage of tax on the price you paid to purchase the property. Suppose you buy a property for 1 million and the your neighbor comes in next year after paying two million. Do you think you’d be ok if you have to pay tax on market value or on the value of your home at the price you bought? Property valuations increase every year. It is used to pay for schools. And public services. It goes to the county into a big pot and then redistributed. For schools, it’s redistributed for the whole state.
PA has its own water and recycling. They will soon have their own microgrids. Schools are funded by parcel taxes. The taxes they pay are actually more than what they get back from the state. The seniors who bought the properties years ago and paying taxes are paying for services they don’t need anyways. New PA residents should be thanking them for sharing the burden.
Rental units are built by commercial builders abd real estate giants. You are targeting home owners who are families and often seniors on fixed income who would like to live in the homes they paid for without being penalized with taxes on a value that they haven’t earned yet because they haven’t sold the home.
5. > People in Palo Alto have a black lives matter signs outside of their house while at the same time leverage local control to block any new supply and prevent anyone who isn't super rich from buying in.
Huh? What does BLM signs have to do with anything? It IS a rich neighborhood. That’s why you want in, right? Better than Newark, right?
6. >When they themselves have benefited from insane monetary return on their own property, could never have bought in today, and pay relatively nothing compared to their new neighbors in financial support for their own community.
How have they benefitted? I would say they have lost more than they have gained. Their city is more congested than ever.
7. >They basically won the housing lottery (where the zoning laws were explicitly racially skewed historically).
You can’t discriminate against someone for their skin colour.
8. >The residents are villains because they've skewed the entire thing in their own favor.
Because they came in before you and built homes, took mortgages and didn’t die soon enough to have their homes sold at market rate for others to move in?
9. >They've gotten massive returns on their house value, they prevent new housing to keep prices high for other people, they pay relatively no property tax on that value.
What returns? Nobody hands them free money because tech start ups sprout in PA. You keep saying things without proof or numbers or evidence.
They are living their lives. You keep painting this picture as if they are chasing people away with pitchforks. Or like they demolished new homes. PA has affordable housing, below market rent units, condos, townhomes, senior housing as well as expensive bungalows and SFHs. Most tech workers won’t qualify for the affordable or senior rent controlled or below market rate units. They can’t afford the market rate homes. Anywhere there is affordable units, market rate goes up. It’s mathematics. The higher you build in density, land value per lot shoots up. Not everyone can afford it. No one demands that the 5 acre lots in woodside and atherton and Los Altos hills should be razed down for high density homes.
10. >The entire economy has been built from people starting companies that have driven that value for them and the people that have done that have to pay rent to the people that just happened to be here.
That’s incredibly arrogant and ignorant. Homes and land is not computers or smartphones. When supply is limited and more people demand it, it’s value is going to increase.
11. >Also in Oakland it's the opposite, people that have lived there are getting priced out of their own community.
Interesting. Who is pricing them out? Tech workers? So they are the villains in Oakland? Why? Because you don’t want to live in Oakland and Palo Alto is nicer, the villain roles are switched?
12. >In Palo Alto it's people that live there keeping prices high to price new people out.
HOW? Prices are not determined by Palo Alto residents. It is determined by the market by those who WANT to sell their Palo Alto homes to newcomers. Price of homes is set by desirability and demand.
13. >Both issues are solved by building more housing.
Convenient. That’s like asking someone if they don’t mind getting raped. And then blaming them for refusing.
14. >It's the hypocrisy that gets to me, I'd rather the people just said "we don't care about anyone else, but ourselves and the people already here - we don't want anyone else to join unless they're extremely rich and we have skewed all local policy in our favor to guarantee that outcome" and stop with the self-righteous political nonsense.
I assure you Bay Area is a beautiful place and there are affordable places everywhere. If climbing the home ownership ladder is important, prudent financial decisions have to be made..and not emotional and reactionary ones. I Want, Don’t Get.
If home ownership is not a criteria, the taker has to play with the market as per the rules of the market.
Only those who foot the bill can make the rules. Local governance and not regional governance is the only way to manage cities sustainably.
Thanks for engaging. I don’t have the bandwidth to debate today. I realize we disagree and I suspect that neither of us would be able to change the others’ mind. Probably best if I bow out of this discussion now. Take care. I do wish you the best in your pursuit of home ownership.
I appreciate the back and forth on a contentious issue.
Drilling into the core difference:
> "When supply is limited and more people demand it, it’s value is going to increase."
> "Price of homes is set by desirability and demand."
> "HOW? Prices are not determined by Palo Alto residents. It is determined by the market by those who WANT to sell their Palo Alto homes to newcomers. Price of homes is set by desirability and demand."
> "Because they came in before you and built homes, took mortgages and didn’t die soon enough to have their homes sold at market rate for others to move in?"
I think the core element here is that prices are high because supply is artificially constrained by existing owners, if allowed to - the market would build a lot more housing and prices would come down a lot. Since the palo alto residents don't allow housing to be built, they are indirectly setting the prices to be high. I don't want people to die, I want people to allow more housing to be built.
The people who already own here don't want that.
As someone who would like to live and raise a family here, I do.
I hear you. I disagree with you re: PA residents setting the prices. It is demand that sets the prices. Too many people wanting to live in PA increases desirability of the area.
The city complying with ABAG demands to build new high density and affordable homes are also increasing land value making it unaffordable for the medium income demographic like yourself.
Welcome to being middle class in the Bay Area. You will probably be eligible to own a below market rate home in PA if you had a lower paying job.
Also Palo Alto is a richer zip code than the rest of Bay Area. If it becomes affordable, then it’s not Palo Alto anymore. It would be Newark(not that anything is wrong with Newark. It’s a great for a starter home and ripe to build equity as Facebook is moving there) And it would lose it desirability as a PA address. It’s a chicken and egg problem.
It's demand and supply. You can't control demand, but you do control supply. Restricting supply keeps prices high.
Building high density homes increases supply and thus lowers prices.
> "Also Palo Alto is a richer zip code than the rest of Bay Area. If it becomes affordable, then it’s not Palo Alto anymore."
You used to be able to buy here without having to pay $4M for a nice place, being exclusionary and rich doesn't have to be the town's defining characteristic (or at least it's not what I like about it). I like that it's close to work, there's good schools, and no commute. I'm not searching for a high status zipcode.
I am actually lucky enough to be able to buy a cheaper place here, but it's frustrating to have all my wealth tied up in housing just to live in a kind of crappy house. People who've been here for a while and bought in at 300k don't really seem to understand that. People that bought in at $4M have sunk costs and strong incentives to not let prices fall.
On the property tax issue, the reason I said variants of 'pay no property tax' is because of the relative value. If a new neighbor pays more tax in one year than you paid cumulatively in 30yrs then effectively your community contribution is negligible.
I get the strong incentives and why someone in your position would push the policy you do, it's just harmful to new people that want to live here.
Other states without prop13 also do not have tax locked to the sale price. They bear some burden for restricting supply and need to pay for that. At a minimum they're charged the tax on house sale that they haven't been paying while living there (so they pay in the end, but don't get kicked out because of it).
Let us break this down because there is too much noise.
1. What is the goal? You can only pick one of the many issues you mentioned above. Because no one of them are connected to each other. Example: even if you make a retiree pay more tax, you may not be able to afford it. Even if they build more affordable housing, it is not for you but for teachers and other people who are ok with living in high density apartments.
2. Identify the player and the player’s motivation first. Each player has a different goal and the solution to getting to each is different. This will clear the vision a bit.
3. From what I have read, it seems to me that you think $4M is too high and for whatever reason you think that if retired seniors on fixed income are made to pay tax on properties that haven’t been sold yet, somehow you and others like you can have a piece of PA real estate.
Another layer of confusion is that you feel that if people build more, housing will be more affordable to the less than 4M shopping budget folks.
Neither of these positions and the assumptions supporting them are rational or logical.
4. The last flaw in your argument is that it is fashioned to create villains whose actions preceded your presence in PA as something that has somehow affected your happiness.
I find that this is very prevalent these days and it’s puzzlingly inexplicable to me.
Your inability to afford a nice house in one of the most desirable zip codes say more about your paycheck than the assets accrued by someone thirty years ago FOR the purpose of watching their nest egg grow.
Nobody buys a property so it will become a financial albatross. Mortgages are designed so that for thirty years during your productive period, you work to pay it off so that when you retire you don’t have the burden of payments but the security and comfort of an appreciated asset. They had planned their lives around this notion without expecting the boom in house prices that PA experienced.
In other words, it’s not their problem or social responsibility to make it easier for those who are too poor to buy in TODAY(decades or years after they made it their home). They are not the ‘bad guys’.
When we stop projecting our lack(too poor to buy in PA) as someone’s else(older existing PA homeowners) villainy, then things will become a little less murky. It’s easy to lash out at others but it won’t solve any problem.
5. Other states do not have population or GDP of California that is almost as much as small countries. Texas and WA have more taxes but they also don’t have income tax.
Housing will not be stable if you don’t cap property taxes. If your property taxes are swinging wildly on the basis of speculative buying and especially from foreign buyers, how can anyone manage their finances? During a boom, it will be 10k..the next year, it could be 30k or 8k.
If you increase the percentage, how will those in fixed income and mortgage free after retirement be able to cover the increases? This plan would force millions of seniors out of their homes right after they have finished payed their mortgages and have stopped working.
Let’s take the example of John. John bought a house in 1990. He is 65 now and receives a pension. He has medical issues. He expects to die in the house he now owns. His finances are managed for fixed expenses including living expenses, property taxes and some savings. How do you expect him to survive if he is made to pay more taxes on a house that has multiple times and he hasn’t sold it yet. The only solution is if he uproots himself and goes to elsewhere cheap.
Another example: let’s take Jack. Jack bought a property in 2000 at age 30. He got married in 2005 and has two kids in school. His house has appreciated but as has his expenses because of his growing family. His income hasn’t increased. How is he supposed to save for his retirement, his kid’s education, his living expenses and mortgage that he still owns if property taxes go on a property doesn’t own yet and hasn’t realized the market appreciation.
This market appreciation is because of young tech workers who came in 2010-2015, foreign home buyers, those who have moved from out of state to CA and desire PA. So the people of CA and homeowners have to subsidize the DESIRES of newcomers and people who don’t yet pay property taxes because they don’t own homes yet but would like to by paying more taxes?
In which universe do you think people would chop off their hand and limb so they can share their chair with you?
What have the newly arrived people desiring a piece of PA done to PA that others living there and have built PA have to bear the cost of sharing their space with them?
If you can’t afford to live in PA by buying a property, PA has nothing to lose. You have no bargaining card. At all. What are you offering in this negotiation to achieve what you want? All I hear is about how ‘unfair’ it is and what it signals is weakness and lack of resources. That’s not a good bargaining chip.
6. Everyone is free to desire and this is a good thing. But if we don’t get what we desire, lashing out at those who have what we want will not achieve anything.
The city of PA doesn’t need new people. It doesn’t need extra property taxes to be levied because the state of CA redistributes all incoming public money. Even if PA gets more housing and pays more property taxes with its socialist policies, it will not benefit PA at all and will only create more restrictions and lesser resources and more crowds. There is no incentive at all. It is more so with PA than other affluent cities in other counties because PA manages its own water Dept and funds it’s own school system with parcel taxes and has its own recycling..and will soon set up microgrids to be truly independent. The high quality of life is only because of local governance. Or it would be a shitty mess like the rest of California.
It is best if the start ups and tech companies move out. Because the employees abhor driving and traffic altho this has been caused by this very sector. The infantalisation of this generation’s workers starting with Google’s coddling at their ‘campus’ and then adopted by other FAANG companies and then even smaller start ups has created an entitled citizenry that is feels entitled and is used to getting what it wants when it wants. Real life is not like that. If one wants something shiny and beautiful and desirable, there is a price for it. I am grateful that it is only a monetary price. It doesn’t matter anymore because with tech moving out of California, things will become better and this insanity might stop if Californians are lucky.
We have just started traded water futures for California water. Did you know that? $496/acre-foot last I checked yesterday. High density building has to stop. I have been farming long enough to have seen the drought era and I am afraid no one in tech knows or understands the tsunami of dust and wind that is waiting for us. California is mostly desert and our water comes because we steal from Rio Grande. It’s a much bigger topic, but all the tech money can’t fix water scarcity that is a guarantee. And we shouldn’t be building more or building densely because it’s easy to go vertical, but not enough water to support the increase in our state’s population.
One way to get leverage would be renters that live in Palo Alto voting to get better representation and policy that benefits them, but I do think this is unlikely to succeed.
Property tax is linked because if it was forcing existing owners to sell because they couldn't afford it then they'd be incentivized to allow higher density housing to increase supply, reducing prices, and then reducing their own tax. They wouldn't be able to do what they're doing now. As it stands the incentive is to restrict supply because there's no downside for existing owners (and only upside). I don't actually prefer this outcome, I'd prefer protecting owners while increasing supply, but without the incentive it doesn't happen because existing owners block it.
As it stands new buyers are subsidizing old owners who pay comparatively nothing in property tax.
Ultimately it comes down to the political positions you state at the end, you don't want more people here or a strong economy of workers here. That's fine and a genuine position to hold (even if I don't agree). I grew up in an area with a poor working economy that would have loved the economy we have here, but it's here mostly by historical accident.
Can you see that it's frustrating to have people that bought in for very little cost telling others that have to spend millions that that's too bad for them? If you bought in for $4M I'd actually be more sympathetic to that position (and maybe you did), but I've found people arguing your position usually bought in for little a long time ago.
> "The city of PA doesn’t need new people...will only create more restrictions and lesser resources and more crowds. There is no incentive at all."
A lot of highly educated technology workers and their families create a nice environment to raise kids in and a great community to learn a ton of things. It seems reasonable to support non-zero-sum growth which can benefit others too. Higher density housing near transit also reduces congestion issues where people now have to commute from east bay. It also allows kids to work nearby in newly created jobs that are the best in the country rather than having to move away.
I suspect the VC economy is here to stay, but maybe it will one day leave and housing prices will crater leaving Palo Alto like Detroit. I doubt it because the weather is nice, but there'd be some schadenfreude in that outcome for me. Unless of course I do buy in, then presumably I'd want no new housing too. :)
>Property tax is linked because if it was forcing existing owners to sell because they couldn't afford it then they'd be incentivized to allow higher density housing to increase supply, reducing prices, and then reducing their own tax.
ok. this is where you dont understand how california taxation works. or how property taxes are assigned. 40% of california budget goes to public schools and over 60% is for salaries and budgets. it is for the entire state which means its for super poor areas to improve. and there is a lot to improve. if palo alto home owners paid more money in taxes, it will not benefit palo alto schools,but maybe to put up a swimming pool in tracy where they dont have a lot of money. palo alto has removed itself from ca funds and funds it's own schools with parcel taxes. its very complicated and i can spend the next hour explaining how ca tax system works and it still wont have anyhting to do with the issue at hand.
my point is that, paying more taxes has NO benefit to palo alto'ians. it doesnt improve their roads or bring infrastruture or have more parks. meanwhile..having more dense housing actually reduces the existing benefits from infrastructure, more crowds and less open spaces etc.
there is literally NO upside. most people's property taxes on older properties are a form of charity because most of their kids dont even use the public school system. they are not being subsidised. look up the city of palo alto's budget. see how funds are allocated and how funds are distributed. the new families that come in consumer more than a retiree in services, built in infrastructure already funded and delivered by the previous residents and schools etc.
nobody today who you think are 'subsidising' older owners came to PA because its an old frontier town that needs to be injected with new life. they desire palo alto because they like something they couldnt find elsewhere.
if you increase housing supply, you kill the goose that lays eggs. everything from water to recycling to power soon to infrastructure is local. it cannot scale without regional governance taking over. the new owners are subsidised by the foundation put up by the older owners and their property taxes because to build the kind of infrastructure in place at palo alto would cost billions and no amount of tax increase will cover it. because any tax increase would go to poorer counties in california.
unless you understand how california redistributes public money, it's unfunded pension liablities and deficit, you will continue to belive wrongly that older residents are being 'subsidised'. this is your first misconception.
>They wouldn't be able to do what they're doing now.
and what is that? do you think the water will stop? trash will pile up? roads wont be repaired? did you think PA was a village with no amenities before young workers came along? this is your second misconception.
>As it stands the incentive is to restrict supply because there's no downside for existing owners (and only upside). I don't actually prefer this outcome, I'd prefer protecting owners while increasing supply, but without the incentive it doesn't happen because existing owners block it.
you can prefer whatever you want, but you have no agency or influence. i prefer that Finland would allow me to fly in to buy a home, but i have no agency or influence. I want Finland farmstead. Finland doesnt need Jellicles Farm.
> As it stands new buyers are subsidizing old owners who pay comparatively nothing in property tax.
>Ultimately it comes down to the political positions you state at the end, you don't want more people here or a strong economy of workers here. That's fine and a genuine position to hold (even if I don't agree). I grew up in an area with a poor working economy that would have loved the economy we have here, but it's here mostly by historical accident.
not at all a political position. this is your third misconception. not everything is political. sometimes people just dont want to take on the burden by giving up their comfort after having already done their share and fair bit. especially if they have worked for decades and finally get to enjoy their homes and retirement.
so you think its a 'historical accident' that palo alto is what it is..can you expand on this part of 'history'?
>Can you see that it's frustrating to have people that bought in for very little cost telling others that have to spend millions that that's too bad for them?
no, i dont see it. what i see is your inablity to grasp that 'the very little cost' was a lot of money when they bought in. it is 'very little' to tech workers NOW with their 6 figure incomes now. they also dont see that for many people, the value of the home kicks in and registers as 'a lot' ONLY when they sell and at which time, they shell out the appropriate taxes.
they are not telling those with millions who still cant afford market forces how much more you guys make today. it's like you go to a store and find a motorcycle parked outside and you make an offer. and the owner is like..."what the heck...it's MY bike and i dont want to sell! i need it!" and you keep insisting that its not fair that he doesnt realise how valuable it is and how its unfair that he got it at a bargain ten years ago..still using it and you have to pay four times what he paid for..and why..oh why wont he understand how frustrating it is!! etc.
>If you bought in for $4M I'd actually be more sympathetic to that position (and maybe you did), but I've found people arguing your position usually bought in for little a long time ago.
your fourth misconception. or rather what you fail to understand is that your sympathetic position is unsolicited. people who own are higher in the influence ladder than those who are not home owners. people who paid taxes and invested and have a vested interest in community and city are more influential than those who don't.
consider this..here you are..not owning a property in palo alto, but wanting a piece of it. you are not averse to making life more expensive for those who are already there. worse, you think that you are the aggrieved party. if i lived there, i would be afraid to let you become part of the community because today you want me to pay more taxes for no direct benefit for me and tomorrow tomorrow you might brush off increases in cost of living like with water charges or electricity because you are young and work at palantir and have stock options and a couple of thousand extra in living expenses is a drop in the bucket for you even though it can completely put me in the red. why would i want this in my city and in my life?
> A lot of highly educated technology workers and their families create a nice environment to raise kids in and a great community to learn a ton of things. It seems reasonable to support non-zero-sum growth which can benefit others too.
to you, maybe. but when resources are limited and land cannot be 'created' or printed like currency. and when my kids have long left home and i dont need 'the ton of things', why would i want someone who doesnt have the needs as i do to dictate to me a lifestyle that is unsuitable for me? especially when you cant afford it and welcoming you means i have to give up the comforts i have taken for granted.
>Higher density housing near transit also reduces congestion issues where people now have to commute from east bay. It also allows kids to work nearby in newly created jobs that are the best in the country rather than having to move away.
again. these are the reasons why tech workers want to live in PA. perfectly reasonable, but not a bargaining chip.
>I suspect the VC economy is here to stay, but maybe it will one day leave and housing prices will crater leaving Palo Alto like Detroit.
maybe. but i dont think so.
>I doubt it because the weather is nice, but there'd be some schadenfreude in that outcome for me. Unless of course I do buy in, then presumably I'd want no new housing too. :)
i am sympathetic to how you feel, but i feel how you are processing it is counter productive to increase the chances of you obtaining your goal.
i want to end with a small incident that comes to mind. when i was a little girl, my grandmother wore this beautiful ruby ring. i absolutely adored it and i would wear it often. but it was too big for my tiny fingers and it would keep slipping off.
i would get so frustrated and one day i marched into the kitchen. i still remember this..my grandmother was slicing okra. i remember this because we used to call okra "lady's fingers" and my grandmother used it to explain her point to me.
she said that even though i loved that ring very much, it wasnt right for me because i needed to grow up. i needed my hands to become bigger so the size of my fingers is the right fit for the ring's size. and she used the okra to show how it didnt fit snug over the skinny end but sat beautifully where it got fatter.
i got that ring. years later. but it is mine now. i hope you get what you want, but perhaps you have to 'grow more' for your home in palo alto. even though the ring was made for my grandmother's fingers, it wasnt the right time for me to wear it. until it was. your time will come too. until then, it's noone's fault.
Again, I do appreciate the back and forth and the additional context re: details around taxes.
I think we ultimately just want different things, but I think I do have a better understanding of your position.
The motorcycle analogy falls flat for me though. To me it’s as if the motorcycle owner pushes to prevent any new bikes from being manufactured because they have one already that they got long ago and additional bikes make the area too loud and crowded.
I get why they want that, I just don’t mind if others in the area can get new bikes too. I don’t want their bike, but I want an opportunity similar to what they had when they bought their’s. That’s it basically.
take this for example: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2020/11/27/sobrato-pit... : 85 new townhomes. you could live in palo alto too and own a property. but if you want the four million dollar bungalow at a price that you can afford(or want to penalise those who own it by slapping more taxes on them to punish them for their ownership) or forcing high density in affluent low density zipcodes, then it's not about you and your needs...but about how you feel towards them and what they have.
that's the difference between wanting their bike and sharing the roads with everyone. and wanting to strip an old valuable bike for parts to be sold so many cheaper bikes can be bought.
I'd be thrilled if that's not blocked and allowed to be built (and there's a real chance I could end up in one of them).
I don't really want more taxes - I want more supply. I'm just not sure how to get that since as you said I have no leverage and people fight supply. I thought tax could be a way to get that incentive/leverage.
Ultimately I'm a lot happier with things like what you linked and hope we see more of them.
Also, if my early combative tone didn't scare you off I'd be happy to grab coffee post covid. I've been in Palo Alto 8yrs and it's nice to meet neighbors. Plus in-person conversation is always more pleasant (and I miss Joanie's).
It’s been approved for a while. If anything the 85 townhomes will be blocked by housing activists who want to build 249 below market rate or low income housing.
And then the townhouse guys will be to the below market rate apartment people what the bungalow folks are to them. And the band marches on.
Taxes are never a good way to resolve what communities can plan. Big govt is like The Devil. The devil’s share will always be bigger than what trickles down to the people. Because. Care and feeding of the creature is expensive.
I am not easily scared!! Let’s meet up. (Altho, not a PA’ian!) My email is my handle at gmail. Perhaps we can meet up at my farm after lockdown/holidays. Good luck! It will all work out fine and to your satisfaction. You just have to be patient and bid your time...:)
I live in Palo Alto (coincidentally in the area pictured).
Hopefully one day something like SB50 will pass.
My preference would be policy targeting prop13. Basically if you fail to build X amounts of new housing (where X is some large value) your property tax goes up 20% per year until it’s at market rate.
If you’re going to constrain supply for you own benefit you should at least have to pay the costs you force on everyone else.