News

City sets aside funds for teacher housing

Council gets behind plan to develop more than 60 units at 231 Grant Ave.

A proposal to build a housing development for teachers at a Santa Clara County-owned site near California Avenue received a lift Monday night, when the Palo Alto City Council agreed to set aside $3 million for the project.

The plan, which is being spearheaded by county Supervisor Joe Simitian, targets a 1.5-acre parcel at 231 Grant Ave., a building across from the Palo Alto Courthouse. The county had already set aside $6 million for the project and Simitian has requested an additional contribution of $3 million, split equally among five school- and community college districts: Palo Alto Unified, Mountain View Whisman, Mountain View Los Altos, Los Altos and Foothill-De Anza Community College District.

The goal, Simitian said, is to build more than 60 units at the site near the California Avenue Business District. He estimated that each unit would cost about $600,000 to construct, which would mean about $36 million in construction costs (this does not include the $12 million in land costs, which the county is contributing).

Much like the county's contribution, Palo Alto's share will come from funds designated for affordable housing. These funds currently amount to about $13 million, according to a report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment.

The proposal, Simitian said, simultaneously addresses two challenges. It provides much needed affordable housing and it specifically assists teachers, whom he described as "an essential part of our workforce."

"If you ask people, 'What makes this a desirable community?' one of the first things people say about why they came to Palo Alto is, 'The quality of schools,'" Simitian told the Weekly. "That is at risk until we are able to attract and maintain first-rate teaching staff."

The council approved the city's $3 million contribution by an 8-0 vote, with Councilman Greg Scharff absent, on its "consent calendar," without discussion. Just before the vote, Simitian addressed the council and assured it that the money is not a commitment, much less a disbursement, but a "set-aside," so that when an acceptable proposal is put together, the funds would be there to implement it.

He called the city's contribution a "significant statement of interest."

The report from city planners makes a similar point. Setting aside the funds, the report states, "signals the Council's conceptual support for a teacher housing project and may encourage other partners to similarly reserve funds."

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Comments

26 people like this
Posted by Thad
a resident of Woodland Ave. area (East Palo Alto)
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:17 am

Why isn't paying teachers a livable wage an option in this incredibly wealthy town?

This isn't a solution to the problem.


24 people like this
Posted by @Thad
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:39 am

At some point, it doesn't matter how much wages go up if there are only so many units of housing to live in.

That said, housing for a specific type of worker, be it teachers or police or what have you, is a feudal bandaid. More housing needs to be built to address the housing crisis so all types of workers can afford to live in or near the city they work in.


22 people like this
Posted by Madias
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:02 am

@Thad.
Time to give the "just build more and prices will drop" theory a rest. You can never build enough housing. The demand in the bay area for Palo Alto housing is relatively infinite when compared to the size of this city. The only way is to subsidize housing for some, or increase wages.


15 people like this
Posted by @Madias
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:09 am

That's nice, except you're wrong. Housing costs are what they are specifically because California, and especially the Bay Area, has for decades restricted the amount of new housing supply being built. Not because there's "infinite demand".

Web Link


17 people like this
Posted by Midtown
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

This is what rich people have done for centuries, “let” people work in the fields for free housing. If you actually pay them they might take up pitchforks and overthrow the system.


15 people like this
Posted by Madias
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:47 am

@Thad
Your link says exactly what I said. That the demand for housing exceeds the supply. They yield the point that they cannot control the demand, so all they can do is increase supply. At no time do they suggest that they can ever meet the demand, and do not address the consequent increase in demand you will get if you were to achieve any decrease in prices. All your link says is there is a lot more demand than supply. This is Economics 1.

Again you will never build enough housing here to achieve a decrease in prices. The demand is relatively infinite.

Please read your own link. It is a partisan group BTW... by the same folks who brought us ABAG)


11 people like this
Posted by @Madias
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2018 at 9:38 am

"That the demand for housing exceeds the supply."

By god, you've done it! You've cracked the cause of the housing crisis! Someone get this man a Nobel!

"They yield the point that they cannot control the demand, so all they can do is increase supply. At no time do they suggest that they can ever meet the demand, and do not address the consequent increase in demand you will get if you were to achieve any decrease in prices."

What twisted logic. You don't stop making new supply in the face of large amounts of demand, because that only makes the problem worse. You continue making supply while finding ways to increase the rate at which the supply is produced. If you didn't have Prop 13 something tells me you'd be far more motivated than you are now to get that new supply built.


"Again you will never build enough housing here to achieve a decrease in prices. The demand is relatively infinite."

Nothing in that paper in any way suggested that you can't build enough to slow, stop, or reverse housing costs. Even if it wasn't possible to build enough housing to meet demand, that's argument for how important it is to not stop building it. You sound callous to the impact this is having on others who aren't as fortunate as you to have a Prop 13 residence which allows you to sit there and bemoan more housing construction to the detriment of everyone else.


21 people like this
Posted by bikermom
a resident of Mayfield
on Jun 26, 2018 at 11:39 am

please stop building here, please. All of the developments over the past few years have been such a huge strain on the current residents. PLEASE STOP! Pay teachers more, they work so hard for it, they deserve higher pay.


12 people like this
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jun 26, 2018 at 11:58 am

stephen levy is a registered user.

Thanks Joe Simitian and the council for pushing this forward.

By the way the Daily Post has as front page story today about rents falling in Seattle as a result of the large increase in new apartment building


4 people like this
Posted by It's a bargain
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:13 pm

3 Million dollars, what a deal!
That's a million dollars less than the City Manager spent on remodeling the lobby in City Hall with Huge useless (expensive) screens and ugly carpeting in the Chamber.
3 Million is a bargain given this Manager's spendthrift ways.


24 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:14 pm

A noble but ill-fated gesture in my opinion. I've commented on this before so will try (I said 'try') to be brief here.

Sixty units? What is the total number of teachers who will be eligible for this lottery? How many will apply? Translate those into percentages. What size units? Any for families who want to plant long term roots in PA until retirement? Or just young single teachers starting their careers, in which case it would be a transitory situation. What will the rental rates be? Maybe still too much for starting teacher's salaries? In which case they'll still be commuting from Morgan Hill, Tracy, et al.

And this is such a blatant display of favoritism. Okay, I got Supervisor Simitian's message about the importance of teachers and retaining them for the quality of education they provide. Now, can you think of any other special group, based on occupations, that would rank second? How about funding housing for them also. I like eating out and I love the chefs at certain restaurants. Put them on the list also. Have fun with this and add your own favorites that you think we should help provide housing for.


8 people like this
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Did you read the piece about Seattle's massive attack on the housing shortage? Skyscraper apartment buildings, ala, Manhattan style. They have now overbuilt. Many apartment units remain unoccupied...and yet the needle on rental prices has barely moved. Hmmm!


8 people like this
Posted by @Gale Johnson
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:30 pm

Actually:

Web Link

"The slowdown in Seattle-area rent increases that began late last year has continued into the first part of 2018, as the crush of new apartments opening across the region catches up with demand in the fast-growing region."


13 people like this
Posted by Eric Rosenblum
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 26, 2018 at 1:47 pm

Huge thanks to Joe Simitian for continuing to show leadership on this issue. We need a lot more housing, especially for teachers. I'm glad that they will get some relief.

For those who are arguing that demand is essentially infinite, that is patently absurd. If that were the case, you could literally sell your house for *any price*; you can't though, because demand is finite. If we build a lot more housing, prices will start to decrease. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen over night, and it doesn't happen with just one development. We have under achieved in housing creation for DECADES. It is going to take years of concerted effort by communities up and down the peninsula to dig us out.


9 people like this
Posted by Favored group
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 26, 2018 at 2:01 pm

There is a housing shortage and high prices right here, but one can live in San Jose.
Why pick one group to favor with a deal?
As a plan, it’s illogical and shows favoritism. Broad government policy encouraging rapid build of an array of housing regionally would be a more sensible approach, I believe. Like a fast-track approval process for projects meeting certain parameters. I mean housing, not offices!
Did you know Palo Alto teachers send their kids to school here for free? That’s an incredible benefit. I pay very high property taxes supporting this benefit. No, I am not elderly nor am I a recent foreign cash investor. I’m someone who can’t afford to sell and downsize, but we face costly property taxes. Caught in the middle/middle-aged. Not sure what to do as still working in the region.


22 people like this
Posted by No to development
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 26, 2018 at 2:16 pm

Since this topic has (as always) diverged into the "to build or not to build" camp, I will add my two cents.

It is OK to stand up and say we don't want this area to be Manhattan.

It may or may not be possible to build enough high rises to drive down the price of rent. Although in the case of Seattle, it doesn't sound as though the rents are terribly cheap yet and no mention was made of other forces at play like jobs and livability. Maybe Google and Facebook are luring all of the workers down here and fewer people are now there to inhabit the apartments. Maybe people got sick of how crowded it was and are leaving. I diverge however from my main point.

That is that residents of an area should be able to decide on what they want in a livable community and not have some far away government (Sacramento) tell them what to do.

If we want Palo Alto to remain a moderate density town with green space and parks then we absolutely have the right to fight for our lifestyle. I don't feel guilty at all about not building high rise apartments and trying to house everyone who wants to come live here. There is no room for them AND the sustainable and enjoyable quality of life that we currently have. We can stand up and tell them no, go away and build elsewhere.

I fully support a city that attempts to be sustainable, not pollute, overcrowd and provide a good living area for its people. If we have a poor jobs/housing balance - get rid of the jobs. What is currently wrong with this area is the poor planning of state, county and local (in hock to developers and huge business interests) government officials that has allowed overdevelopment of unsupportable businesses that are overcrowding by our roads, schools, housing stock and open spaces. They are the cause of all of our problems and the entire Bay Area (if it had any sense besides an overwhelming greed) should be like Palo Alto and severely limit addition of business development. We have enough here. Let the companies go elsewhere and let the new people live there and establish there own communities how they see fit.

Enough is enough. Speak up. Write to the county and tell them to stop the growth plan at Stanford. Vote to manage office development in Palo Alto in November. And vote out any candidate who mindlessly supports more growth and housing in Palo Alto in the coming election. We can control our destiny, but only if we speak up.


4 people like this
Posted by @No to development
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2018 at 3:17 pm

"It is OK to stand up and say we don't want this area to be Manhattan"

Especially with Prop 13 shielding you from the consequences of the housing crunch, leaving everyone else to deal with the consequences. What a brave moral stance to take.


8 people like this
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jun 26, 2018 at 4:53 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

No one is talking about Palo Alto becoming Manhattan.

There were plenty of people at the last two council meetings saying how great the President Hotel was for housing. Yes the hotel, where I live and the three adjacent buildings all downtown are all illegal under today's zoning.

The other part of the Simitian proposal is the re purposing of underused public land--an idea that could help bring forth other locations for housing and for other groups of public employees or others.

If you do not want any more housing anywhere near you, this proposal is not for you.

But if you want to help some peopel (in this case teachers) find affordable housing nearer where they work, this is a great idea.

When teachers can live closer to work, they benefit BUT the children and parents where they teach do also as the teachers now have more time for after school activities and meeting with parents.


19 people like this
Posted by Juan
a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 26, 2018 at 5:36 pm

This is quite literally the worst idea anyone has ever had for teacher housing. To understand why, just look at a map. They are proposing to build housing for Santa Clara County teachers at the very edge of the County. It's inevitable by demographics that most of these housing units will be filled by teachers who work in San Jose, who "win" the right to commute 1 hour+ to work (almost certainly by solo automobile), because some genius thought it was a great idea to put housing for Santa Clara County teachers 2 miles from the county line. It will be a miracle of more than a few of these units are occupied by Palo Alto teachers.

Instead of building teacher housing 1 hour+ away from schools, why not give all teachers a $5000 raise?


4 people like this
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jun 26, 2018 at 5:47 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

@Juan

the housing will be for teachers in five districts near Palo Alto--not San Jose.

No one will be commuting an hour to work from this housing.

If this works out I hope we can find available public land near San Jose for those teachers.


16 people like this
Posted by Really
a resident of Stanford
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:15 pm

Steve -

“No one is talking about Palo Alto becoming Manhattan.”

As an economist, would you pleae estimate the number of units Palo Alto would have to build to drive housing costs to a level affordable by a household that earns the national average? Keep in mind the number of people in countries with populations that dwarf ours, such as China and India, have large numbers of people who want to live in Palo Alto, and that new building generally drives up the cost/sq ft. And keep in mind that even now, ongoing commercial development supports an order of magnitude more people than ongoing residential development.

I think if you approach this objectively. you will be forced to admit that you are asking for Palo Alto to become Manhattan.


15 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 26, 2018 at 7:38 pm

Steven Levy says "No one will be commuting an hour to work from this housing. " public transportation to Mountain View High takes 1 hour 39 minutes per gooogle maps, by car 20 minutes.

public transportation to foothill college takes 45 minutes per google maps, by car 20 minutes.

So most likely this will add to the traffic issues we have.

The teachers unions contribute to politics, and this is just Joe SImitian's way of currying favor with those unions.


5 people like this
Posted by Carol
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:08 pm

Pay teachers more


2 people like this
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:17 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

@ common sense

Your post makes no sense.

If these teachers now drive an hour and by your estimate will only have to drive 20 minutes, that will reduce the amount of time teacher cars are on the road and related pollution.

@ really

I advocate building the amount of housing that is in the Comp Plan and perhaps a bit more if we change zoning to allow places like the President Hotel that have 75 units on a relatively small parcel.

The estimate is 300+ units per year. Going to six or eight stories would help but even without that with better zoning that target can be met.

Reducing costs for low income residents will require subsidies and project approvals and I hope both will happen.

No one I know is suggesting the straw man goals you put forth. Just meeting the adopted Comp Plan/Housing Element goals would be a great start.


14 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 26, 2018 at 8:22 pm

Juan, you are spot on. If the district gave ALL teachers a transportation stipend based on where they live, that would have a greater impact. Hell, just do what Google, Stanford, LinkedIn, etc. does and provide a free Caltrain pass. Not only would you make employees happier, but you would be encouraging public transportation! Win win for the city and its residents.


32 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 26, 2018 at 9:51 pm

This makes little sense. Palo Alto City council is putting in $3m to build housing for 12 local teachers, plus 48 who are guaranteed to be car commuters to others towns? Why in the world would they do that?

Note also that the pausd school board took this off their agenda twice and kicked it till next year. That tells us something about about their level of interest.

The main beneficiary of the project would be Simitian, who gets credit for "helping the teachers" especially outside his home base in Palo Alto. Palo Alto gets 48 car commuters. Woo hoo.


24 people like this
Posted by Simitian vanity project
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 27, 2018 at 7:20 am

Resident has figured this out. Why would Palo Alto pay $3 million to house 12 teachers for PAUSD? That's $250,000 per teacher! Plus we get 50 other teachers who are GUARANTEED to be driving to their jobs elsewhere in the county! The real beneficiary of this is Joe Simitian, who gets to sprinkle a tiny amount of teacher housing over his district, and claim to be solving a problem.

I have some questions for Joe and the City:
Why isn't the school district using some of its land to build teacher housing, if it's actually important for teacher recruitment? They could probably build more than 12 units, and also pass a bond to pay for it.

Why is the City subsidizing housing for people who are guaranteed to work elsewhere, rather than for people who might live and work in Palo Alto? I don't get why City dollars are going for this.

Why not use these dollars for lower income workers? Teacher in PAUSD average $100k.

Finally, why not use this land for teachers and others who live in Palo Alto, and put housing for people who work elsewhere someplace else? Oh, I forgot: that wouldn't deliver the political benefits Joe is looking for. Unfortunately, he's trying to use our money to pay for it.


12 people like this
Posted by Logan
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 27, 2018 at 8:27 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


5 people like this
Posted by @Logan
a resident of another community
on Jun 27, 2018 at 9:47 am

Please subsidize my property tax, too! I shouldn't have to pay market rate tax on my property. Give me subsidies and cut my taxes!


10 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Jun 27, 2018 at 10:51 am

Lurching from one disaster to the next. They're building apartments houses in Mountain View nine stories high. The Buena Vista land swindle would be worth at least 300 million dollars in apartment houses. This is a calamity for the city of Palo Alto. It's good readers are seeing through all this vote getting nonsense. Teacher housing is needed like a hole in the head. There are already many teaching credentials, law degrees etc. already housed in one of the best educated places on earth. Simitian is a disaster because he ignores basic economics along with his henchmen. I elect Gale Johnson as chief economist for the city of Palo Alto. She looks at the numbers first before making a decision. Get rid of rent control in Silicon Valley and I'll put 100 billion dollars into the construction of apartment houses in Silicon Valley virtually overnight.
George Drysdale social studies teacher and land economist


Like this comment
Posted by @Thad
a resident of another community
on Jun 27, 2018 at 11:53 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


1 person likes this
Posted by @Logan
a resident of another community
on Jun 27, 2018 at 12:04 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Like this comment
Posted by S mom
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 27, 2018 at 12:22 pm

Although there may be other deserving professions in addition to teachers that could benefit from subsidized housing, I think there is a rational reason to limit it to teachers -- Palo Alto property values are in part based on its reputation for great schools. Making sure great teachers aren't priced out of working in PA schools is a rational goal. Not sure 12 units moves the needle, or that any teachers with families will be interested in this housing, but I do see a rational economic reason to single out teachers.


10 people like this
Posted by Webster Street
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2018 at 1:27 pm

Dear Thad, So, I'm supposed to sell my home to you and move to Chico. If you want to wait a few years, I will sell to you - when I want to. That's what people do. Retake your Econ l0l class about free markets. How about taking your talents elsewhere where there is housing and employment in your field ? That's what millions of people have done for years. If you're a techie, techie businesses are developing all over the country. Since when did you add "privileged" to your name? That's the way life works. Welcome to it! ( Don't respond with "logic" that it's not you who's privileged, but me. Not gonna work. )


29 people like this
Posted by April's Fool in June?
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 27, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Wait, what? This would literally mean 50 apartments where residents are REQUIRED to work outside of Palo Alto. This must be a joke - is there anything else like it? I thought the idea was housing for people to correct our "housing/jobs imbalance"? This is the opposite!

Back to the drawing board, Joe...


20 people like this
Posted by Old Paly Alum
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2018 at 3:33 pm

How can I get removed from Joe Simitan's phone call list? I can't stand that socialist.

Can't possibly house all the teachers in Palo Alto. They earn over $100,000 in salary and should be happy about that. Most teachers elsewhere earn $55,000. And, as noted by others, why do they get priority over firemen and others?

My husband commutes to South S.F. each day. People don't live where they work.


14 people like this
Posted by mauricio
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 27, 2018 at 3:45 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

Steve Levy may say that no one is talking about turning Palo Alto into Manhattan, but what he and his fellow travelers have in mind, without saying it in public, is, if implemented, going to turn Palo Alto into Manhattan, and/or Hong Kong.


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 27, 2018 at 7:26 pm

"But if you want to help some peopel (in this case teachers) find affordable housing nearer where they work, this is a great idea."

This is a perennial spiel from developers and their stooges. So let's see now: Palo Alto already has hundreds of "affordable" housing units. How many are occupied by teachers? Huh?

Yup. And we can likely expect a similar superminority in this project too.


5 people like this
Posted by @Old Paly Alum
a resident of another community
on Jun 27, 2018 at 7:44 pm

"My husband commutes to South S.F. each day. People don't live where they work."

Commuting to South S.F from Palo Alto is nothing. People are having to live in Livermore in order to commute into Mountain View and Palo Alto.


2 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 27, 2018 at 8:58 pm

@“Old PALY alum” PA to south SF is a breeze. I know PAUSD teachers who commute from Gilroy and Los Banos. I even talked with a custodian who lives in Manteca.

Also check your stats, PAUSD teachers start at $61k and most are required to have a Masters degree. A masters in computer science and starting salary at Google can easily clear $200k plus stock options. Nearly impossible to compete.


21 people like this
Posted by Old Paly Alum
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2018 at 10:16 pm

@Bob: Wrong twice. P.A. to S.S.F. is a 1-hour drive during the weekdays. And no, PAUSD teachers do not need masters degrees to teach. Those PAUSD teachers commute by choice; they could find teaching positions elsewhere, nearer to their homes. A custodian can do the same. This obsession of the socialists to allow everyone who works in Palo Alto to live in Palo Alto is a pipe dream. Palo Alto City Council is just trying to pat themselves on the back by addressing the issue, but they cannot house everyone.


1 person likes this
Posted by @Old Paly Alum
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 27, 2018 at 10:56 pm

"P.A. to S.S.F. is a 1-hour drive during the weekdays."

Which is a breeze compared to how long it takes to come in from Livermore or Gilroy during weekdays.


Like this comment
Posted by @Old Paly Alum
a resident of another community
on Jun 27, 2018 at 10:59 pm

"Those PAUSD teachers commute by choice; they could find teaching positions elsewhere, nearer to their homes. A custodian can do the same."

Who exactly do you expect to do these jobs if everyone suddenly decided to do this?


Like this comment
Posted by Bob
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 28, 2018 at 9:06 am

@old PALY alum

Here’s a link, $115k/year is now considered low income in the Bay Area.

Web Link

PAUSD hires “highly qualified” teachers which means that most of them DO actually have masters degrees.


19 people like this
Posted by Old Paly Alum
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2018 at 11:01 am

@Bob: Prove it. I know many PAUSD teachers and they do not have masters degrees. The ones who do have their eyes set on management. There is no other reason to have a masters degree to be a teacher. In fact, anyone with a 4-year degree can be a substitute teacher here, doesn't need to be a teaching degree.

As per your statement about six figures being considered low in the Bay Area, I can assure you that there are plenty of Palo Altans who do earn $115,000 but they are married so they have afforded a house here with the dual income. There are plenty of doctors and lawyers who earn about $150,000 so should they qualify for low-income housing too?

Why does everyone think they have a right to live in Palo Alto but people don't think that about other areas such as Mountain View, San Jose, Menlo Park, Redwood City? Are people in Southern CA complaining that they cannot afford Beverly Hills and there should be low-income housing for them?

Socialism has been a proven failure. Our country is great due to capitalism.


4 people like this
Posted by @Old Paly Alum
a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2018 at 11:13 am

"Why does everyone think they have a right to live in Palo Alto but people don't think that about other areas such as Mountain View, San Jose, Menlo Park, Redwood City? Are people in Southern CA complaining that they cannot afford Beverly Hills and there should be low-income housing for them?"

[Portion removed.] The fact is that the Peninsula is where the jobs are and where the commuters are heading to, and that's where the homes need to be built so teachers aren't commuting in from Gilroy.

[Portion removed.]


15 people like this
Posted by Second Generation
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 28, 2018 at 12:06 pm

[Portion removed.]

We don’t all benefit from Prop. 13. I moved to Palo Alto in 2008 and paid almost $2 million for our mini house. How did we earn that money? Worked our tails off in high school, college, career. Chose careers that paid well. At one point when I was young and single, I worked 3 jobs to save money. America allows that opportunity for everyone. Any young person should work at least two jobs if they don’t see a jackpot in their career in the horizon. Instead, Snowflakes are waiting for the government and the rich to bail them out with taxes. Meanwhile, they spend money frivolously on daily Starbuck’s coffee, partying, new car, new this, new that on a whim, no thinking about retirement savings or the cost of raising children. Americans have it so good that they’ve gotten lazy. Not my kids, I’ve raised them right with the desire to plan wisely for their futures. They won’t be looking for handouts like so many others expect.


1 person likes this
Posted by @Second Generation
a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2018 at 12:18 pm

"It's natural for prices to rise over time. But the issue here is that home values are outpacing inflation, making it nearly impossible for new and young buyers to enter the market.

Dramatically higher prices are partly why the typical homebuyer is now 44, whereas in 1981, the typical homebuyer was 25-34."

Web Link

[Portion removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Lottery
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 1, 2018 at 10:50 am

Just another Democratic giveaway to another Democratic constituency.

Is this really anything other than open corruption?

And grotesque at that: $600K/unit?!!? It doesn't sound like government housing to me...


2 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 1, 2018 at 5:37 pm

So far in 2018, there have been around 200 single family homes that sold for less than $750,000, and around 800 townhouses/condos that sold for less than $750,000 in the cities located between Daly City and San Jose.

Why $750,000? Two people earning $65,000 (PAUSD salary for a teacher with no experience) can qualify for a $600,000 loan.

It would be better for teacher and more people could be helped if instead of the county spending $36 million to build 60 units, they offer very low interest/no interest loans of up to $200,000. Three times (180) teachers could be helped with housing. And the teachers would build equity in owning their own home, rather than renting from the county.

And if the PAUSD were to help with Caltrain costs so that the teachers are commuting by train, the teachers could be doing work while they commute.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The Oft-Unseen Fruits of End-of-Life Care
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,637 views

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,166 views

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 19 comments | 1,057 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,009 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 553 views

 

Pre-registration ends tomorrow!

​On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More