Publication Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Board of Contributors: Does Palo Alto have too much housing?
Board of Contributors: Does Palo Alto have too much housing?
(October 19, 2005) by Stephen Levy
ancy and I moved downtown recently after living for 20 years on Edgewood Drive. I love eating breakfast downtown and now I get to do that easily whenever I want.
Last Sunday I had breakfast at Peninsula Fountain and the place was jammed. It was wonderful to see one of my favorite places thriving and to hear all the young and old voices mingled together.
But I like quiet and I am going back to eating at 7:30 a.m., when there is less hustle and bustle.
My breakfast dilemma is a metaphor for housing in Palo Alto: Community benefits versus my personal peace and quiet.
Does Palo Alto have "too much" housing? An economist's answer is a resounding no for at least two reasons. The more important reason has to do with our economy, locally and regionally.
I suspect everyone agrees that Silicon Valley would benefit from more housing. Business leaders tell us so. Community organizations agree. One of the largest barriers to economic growth in Silicon Valley is the difficulty in finding housing that does not require a long commute, which both robs from quality family time and from community involvement.
Many cities in our area, such as San Jose and Mountain View, have figured this out and changed the way they approach housing development.
Housing is a bit like taxes: necessary but someone else should do it, someplace else. Polls regularly show support for taxing someone else and some residents profess great sympathy for more housing -- as long as it is elsewhere.
We moan a lot about the loss of retail sales in Palo Alto and then moan about building housing so our stores can have more customers. Is Palo Alto supposed to thrive on customers that drive here from elsewhere? Is that the way "more retail" but "too much new housing" is made compatible in people's minds?
And don't try to argue with an economist that developers are building "too much" housing for the market. First, that is obviously false because the new housing here and elsewhere is being bought. Second, it is insulting to tell professionals they don't know what they are talking about. And, third, if housing demand temporarily drops, builders will react quickly.
But the market is telling us the opposite. The market is saying that there is a lot of vacant space for commercial and industrial/R&D uses. City after city and landowner after landowner are converting nonresidential space to residential uses.
Yes, Palo Alto is a "built out" city. But that is completely irrelevant to the current debate. We are not talking about converting parks to housing. We are talking about the best use of existing land -- about use and density. San Francisco is a "built out" city but will add thousands and thousands of housing units, and make the City and its economy stronger by doing so.
And along the way as housing prices have gone out of sight the city and school district do better than before financially from housing, particularly when the alternative is vacant property.
So we have a debate on providing incentives for businesses to keep selling cars in Palo Alto -- fine with me but strange to see why this will work in the marketplace in the long run -- but complaining about building houses which are plainly in demand.
Well, you all know what the answer is. It is my restaurant example. A thriving city probably means more traffic, more lines and a little less convenience.
Should we throw the Farmer's Market out or ration passes to shop there? Talk about crowded! I hate going there, but at the same time I love the food and love that Palo Alto offers the market to the large number of obviously enthusiastic patrons.
There are negative effects from having more people on the planet, more people in our region, more people in our city. Sometimes life gives us choices that suck. Like Katrina and Rita. (Hm. I wonder how our bayfront levees are doing, and who will pay to fix them up if needed.)
So here we are starting another City Council race and housing will and should be one of the key issues. Palo Alto is a Goldilocks city and our politicians here (and elsewhere) are good at giving Goldilocks answers such as: "I favor housing but not 'too much.'"
Personal convenience versus the greater good. Americans today are showing amazing compassion to the hurricane victims, despite the inconvenience to their lives and pocketbooks, because they feel it is the right thing to do.
I think building the currently proposed housing projects in Palo Alto is the right thing to do. But when is "too much"? What do you think?
Stephen Levy is director of the Palo Alto-based Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy and is a longtime resident of Palo Alto. He can be e-mailed at slevy@ccsce.com -- to respond to his question for publication, send copy to letters@paweekly.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
