> We rent our current home with another couple for $6200 a month;
Wow. I can't believe someone would be willing to pay $3100 (assuming they split it 50/50) to share a home with another couple. I don't care where you live or how "hot" the market is; that's asinine.
$3100 is still a high amount. How would this be any different for a couple to rent an (equally sized) apartment with another couple for the same amount? That price makes sense for the area.
> $3100 is still a high amount. How would this be any different for a couple to rent an (equally sized) apartment with another couple for the same amount? That price makes sense for the area.
That's equally asinine. Arguably, even more so if both couples are sharing one bathroom.
its implied by the home value of $2.7M. i dont think that $6200 is enough to rent a home of that value. as the author says, the mortgage would be $12K per month.
It is painful that Palo Alto is getting very expensive. There are definitely two populations: Tech industry families, and old Palo Alto residents trapped in their homes. [0] For better or worse, the locals have decided to restrict supply of new houses to protect the value of their existing inventory. If if they opened up 5,000 new units in Palo Alto, it still would barely make a dent.
The scope of the problem, and the Not In My Backyard syndrome highlights that it's a regional problem, and not a city-wide one. State laws need to make it easier to build everywhere. (Yes - I buy that environmental impacts need to be studied, but when they're used solely as an excuse to stop development, the poorest suffer, and real environment issues get put to the side)
In the end Palo Alto will suffer if all the new building is done in Redwood City, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. In 30 years, the residents of Palo Alto will be living in dilapidated old houses while their neighbors have newer ones to choose from.
[0] This is due to CA tax assessment laws that restrict mobility. I can write more on this.
I wanted to move to the Bay Area for years but housing was always the one thing crushing those dreams. I finally decided on Atlanta, because it had the cheapest housing prices of the big cities, and a burgeoning tech sector. Prices have risen steadily since moving here two years ago. It's only a matter of time until all major cities see high prices.
Native of Atlanta here. Routinely get offered mid-six-figures to move to SV/SF. No thanks...I get just as many low-six-figure salary here, and here that buys me a nice house in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town for more like $2k/mo. So I have enough money after mortgage I can actually have things like vacations and regular nights out and retirement and such.
I think I understand where the city council is coming from. From their perspective, the tech boom they're experiencing is exactly that - a boom. They don't want all this change to their landscape and lifestyle only to have it go vacant when the boom is over.
13 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 40.8 ms ] threadWow. I can't believe someone would be willing to pay $3100 (assuming they split it 50/50) to share a home with another couple. I don't care where you live or how "hot" the market is; that's asinine.
That's equally asinine. Arguably, even more so if both couples are sharing one bathroom.
Wow ^ Wow!
Half of that amount to share a place was ridiculous enough. Paying that full amount in rent every month is a different level of stupid.
"We rent our current home with another couple for $6200 a month"
The scope of the problem, and the Not In My Backyard syndrome highlights that it's a regional problem, and not a city-wide one. State laws need to make it easier to build everywhere. (Yes - I buy that environmental impacts need to be studied, but when they're used solely as an excuse to stop development, the poorest suffer, and real environment issues get put to the side)
In the end Palo Alto will suffer if all the new building is done in Redwood City, Mountain View and Sunnyvale. In 30 years, the residents of Palo Alto will be living in dilapidated old houses while their neighbors have newer ones to choose from.
[0] This is due to CA tax assessment laws that restrict mobility. I can write more on this.
This technically isn't a brand new phenomenon.