> '“Now you have Caucasians moving back into the community, you have Facebookers and Googlers and Yahooers,” said Pastor Paul Bains, a local leader. “That’s what’s driven the cost back up. Before, houses were rarely over $500,000. And now, can you find one under $750,000? You probably could, but it’s a rare find.”''
It's a pity that they don't teach journalists how to think. The problems in housing shortage and increase in housing prices is because of zoning density restrictions, not that more people are moving into the neighborhood. These zoning density restrictions are a market inefficiency called "rent-seeking" which uses politics to give a special interest group, in this case landlords and existing home owners a portion of unearned wealth over tenants and home buyers.
The proper fix is to pass laws that prohibit the zoning density restrictions or that reverse the "rent-seeking" laws.
One gets tired of journalist writing these kinds of stories without citing the reasons and the fix.
Where I live in NYC, many of those on the left claim that they want affordable housing and want people to have an affordable wage (or lower housing costs in order to make the wage they earn go farther), yet they are for laws that limit zoning density.
This phenomenon zoning density restrictions related to affordable housing is written about by many, but here is a good article by Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser who is an expert on cities.
"It's a pity that they don't teach journalists how to think"
It's a pity that you can't humbly disagree with someone over a differing opinion, rather than framing them as ignorant and unaware of some basic truth that you're privy to. It's not just off-putting, but it's also inaccurate.
Your feeling on "rent-seeking" and zoning policy are hardly universal, and there are many scholars that have written alternative views on the subject.
> "Your feeling on "rent-seeking" and zoning policy are hardly universal, and there are many scholars that have written alternative views on the subject."
Please cite your sources. The rent-seeking is one of 3 forms of microeconomic market inefficiencies (the others are [negative] externalities and information asymmetry).
Prices rise because of scarcity. Zoning density restrictions causes scarcity. "rent-seeking" is use of politics or other means to create a market inefficiency that helps a special interest gain increased wealth, not through wealth creation. Zoning density restriction are from politics.
There is universal understanding that zoning density restrictions (which is using politics to create scarcity) create higher housing costs. I don't know anyone who states that zoning density restrictions do not cause higher housing costs.
Journalists are glorified communications majors, the degree you go for when sports medicine/therapy doesn't interest you as much...they aren't exactly held to high intellectual standards, at least, not anymore.
Think about the technical inaccuracies you see in articles concerning subject matter you're an expert in, or an event you were witness to. That's par for the course in most articles, few journalists bother to understand what it is they're writing about, or probably don't have time to. Then go into how journalism is ratings driven and going through huge cutbacks, and you have standards where it's more important an article be provocative and feed into their readership's confirmation bias than make people think or propose solutions or only work with hard facts. It's more provocative to blame white technocrats than government or landowners for not wanting an population density to go up because they like their views or impact the environment or it would devalue their property.
Of course, my opinion is Silicon Valley should just not be there. Anywhere with a high barrier to entry of cost of living at that level will be discriminatory, also, what good is making that much money if most of it getting sunk into cost of basic living that doesn't improve your quality of life or meet the life style of someone making half as much somewhere else has and creates issues for those that lived there that don't work in tech. Tech needs to spread out, so there is space for others. You would think of all industries, physical proximity would be less of a factor.
That isn't the journalist speaking. That's a quote from a local pastor. The journalist is simply reporting what is happening, not proposing solutions.
Another person quoted in the article correctly identified the housing supply issue. "For all that, Hernandez-Goff thinks the systemic problems – housing shortages, wage stagnation, inequality – are beyond her." Since she doesn't have the political clout to solve that issue, she offers some short term first aid. "She wants to open a school parking lot to cars and RVs at night, so families with children can sleep without being disturbed; she thinks lack of sleep and stress are contributing to her district’s low test scores. And she would like to install washing machines in schools for those without homes."
> 'Another person quoted in the article correctly identified the housing supply issue. "For all that, Hernandez-Goff thinks the systemic problems – housing shortages, wage stagnation, inequality – are beyond her."'
While the Hernandez-Goff agrees that they are systemic problems, she does not mention how to address housing shortages. Many think that one needs to spend money to create more (affordable) housing, but the real solution is simply to address the market inefficiency caused to benefit special interest groups.
That she cites wage stagnation and inequality makes it sound like she doesn't understand the zoning density restriction because eliminating the rent-seeking zoning law restrictions eliminates the inequality and wage stagnation is not an issue because housing costs will drop meaning people can afford more on the same wages.
She isn't a trained economist but a community organizer providing hands-on assistance. Why are you expecting policy from her? This is an article about homeless people and the people working with them, not an opinion piece or a policy statement.
In the early 1920's NYC was building 100,000 apartments per year. Then government interfered and created the shortage:
From Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser:
"...Radically upping that supply would leave far more New Yorkers able to rent something for a reasonable price on the free market, instead of allowing rents to continue to rise for most while a select few win access, via waitlists and lotteries, to a separate class of apartments at below-market rates.
Once upon a time, New York City understood this. In the early 1920s, we were building 100,000 new housing units, accessible to people across the economic spectrum, every year. As a result, the booming city remained affordable to working- and middle-class people like my grandparents.
How was this possible? For one, the city’s regulations back then were relatively modest, focusing primarily on safety and light. Thanks in no small part to that limited red tape, the cost of producing new units was relatively low, and — surprise, surprise — they got built." (The article continues)
This is at best a cartoon-like oversimplification of the actual state of affairs. For one thing, one of the main facts of live which characterized the 1920s was that of a massive credit (and speculation) bubble, particularly in housing starts -- the collapse of which led to the onset of this thing known as the Great Depression.
For another, most of the land hitherto occupied by those 1920s apartment buildings was at the time either vacant, or occupied by dwellings of extremely low density (farm cottages or light industry).
And a whole bunch of other factors. Bottom line, anyone who thinks that if only we could just "cut the red tape" we could start building 100,000 apartments a year again in the NYC of 2016 is engaging in more than a bit of wishful thinking.
He is an expert on cities. I live in NYC and much of Manhattan is low density (4 story brownstones). It may not be building 100,000 apts. per year, but it would be far, far greater number than what is being built today.
So are you suggesting we rip out (all but the upper-crust of) the brownstones, and put in glass boxes as high as we can build them? And that even if we did -- that there would realistically be any way to ensure that even a significant portion of these would be affordable -- without a good heaping dose of, you know, coercion (courtesy of your pals on the left)?
> "I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually."
If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing.
Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest.
Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.")
Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example).
I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.
That's basically asking "why don't they just throw away all their social connections and uproot their lives more than they already are"? Where you live isn't just the building you inhabit.
It's that what all immigrants do? Uprooting for economic reasons is pretty common, (immigration, children moving away from parents, etc). If anything they (and we as a society) should be thankful that there is the opportunity to move unrestricted in a large and diverse nation.
Many are from the area and have lived in the area most of their lives. The current situation has evolved over the last 20 or so years to the point where it has become economically impossible to live because of the "outsiders", from large tech companies, coming in and displacing them.
How willingly would you be to pick up and move in this situation?
These "outsiders" are themselves fellow Americans or immigrants who uprooted their lives in search of economic prosperity.
Maybe I am misunderstanding something but is seems foolish to me to sit in a single location and complain that the right economic conditions for my success are not at my current location and refuse to move (especially ironic since we live in a capitalistic market economy, jobs are constantly changing and resources moving around).
The article never mentioned they are complaining, IIRC. They are economically displaced. Where would they go?
This is a large-scale socio-economic uprooting. Many of them lack marketable job skills and the necessary finances to allow location portability.
We're experiencing a very large shift in financial wealth where the level of poverty in the country is increasing at rates not seen since The New Deal and that's the entire point: the Bay Area is an extreme example of this where economic disparity is so extreme. Add to that the socially minded nature of California and you have those people who "complain" of the lack of a social safety net at the Federal level or even a lack of a fair balance of distributing economic wealth fairly.
edit:
And our "capitalistic market economy" is anything but capitalistic, in fact it is predatory upon the poor and economically disadvantaged. [1],[2],[3],[4]
There is no meaningful data that backs up your assertion that the poverty rate in the United States is significantly increasing. In fact, the rate has been essentially flat for 50 years.
Well, I guess we can cite statistics all day to prove each other wrong, but clearly in [1] from 1990 to 1992 it rose before a Clinton Presidency where it fell considerably (not crediting President Clinton directly but he did produce a large number of jobs during his presidency) before President Bush's contractionary policies started a large increase in poverty again in 2000 through 2010 in our worst recession since the Great Depression.
It did, this has improved, however it's structurally temporary. The effects of it are that it's also continually displacing larger numbers of the middle-class as our trade policies are moving what remains of our higher paying manufacturing base, what used to make up that lower to middle part of the middle-class blue collar workers, to lower paying countries.
So, if you think, with your single graph that poverty isn't increasing you're not looking at what's really happening structurally in the US economy and with all of the relevant data around you.[2]
We have College tuition that is unaffordable and an aging, out of work, unemployed, or underemployed workforce, with skills that have not kept up with the rapid change in the shift of American jobs and poverty truly is on the rise.
1) Sure there have been some small short term fluctuations but the long term stability is pretty clear. And if you look back further than 50 years you'll actually see a steep decline in poverty. You can also see steep declines in poverty if you look internationally instead of just in the US.
2) You bring up a lot of other issues that are certainly real problems but they are mostly claims about what might happen in the future. That makes them speculation not fact. And sure, your speculation might end up being true and some of those speculations could lead to an increase in the poverty rate[A]. But you should be careful to frame what you are saying as a prediction about the future not a statement about something that has already happened in the past.
A. Personally I think you're wrong. But that's speculation too!
TFA describes a mom who is keeping it together for a family of five on a $11/hour wage (they lost the home when the dad got injured), and teachers who are commuting 2+ hours each way to get to work.
What evidence do you have that these people are too foolish to understand our economy? Or too stubborn to do what is needed in order to succeed?
"Several homeless families whose children attend local schools told the Guardian that they had considered moving to cheaper real estate markets, such as the agricultural Central Valley, but there were no jobs there."
Buy why not look evan farther? The US is much larger than California. There are places which much cheaper costs of living in the midwest and the south. Seems stubborn that you must stay in California.
They are at a disadvantage trying to find work on the other side of the country due to currently being homeless on the West Coast. People look for work starting nearby and then at increasing distances because that is the practical way to find work and minimize the risks and costs (financial and otherwise) of moving.
But if they were guaranteed a life in Illinois or North Carolina, maybe they would move? You and I don't know, but there is no reason to suspect they are simply being stubborn or foolish. It's entirely natural and rational to want to live, with your kids, in roughly the same region continuously.
Exactly my thoughts. Cognitive stagnation, inflexibility, absence of basic planning and analysis, religious frames they put themselves in etc etc all these are the factors that don't allow these individuals to break class levels up or even stay on the same level.
It would not matter if homes were available for $100k, this family appears to be utterly destitute. This story should not be about housing but services for very poor families. I suspect this is why this family continues to stay in Silicon Valley in defiance of common sense; they would be homeless in El Centro or Tijuana also.
That's an exact quote from a local pastor, you can't blame the Guardian for accurately reporting what at least some individuals think of the issue. I think your problem is with the pastor, not with the reporters.
Yeah, this is what I was going to post in response.
It's not "race-baiting" to accurately acknowledge that white flight happened. Demographic trends show white people moving back to the cities, leaving minorities without a sure place to live or a rooted community to belong to, usually because of the connection of class and mobility.
california has a lot of this. they endlessly lecture the rest of the country on environment and sustainability while driving their hybrids 4 hours a day.
What's the point? You mention SV and you get clickbait?
The vast widening of differences in income levels in the past 20 years might have might have something to do with it. That, and the fact that it's the cradle of an industry that prides itself on "changing people's lives for the better".
> Remarkably, slightly more than one-third of students – or 1,147 children – are defined as homeless here, mostly sharing homes with other families because their parents cannot afford one of their own, and also living in RVs and shelters
So clearly I was homeless all the years I lived with roommates.
In this case, you're redefining "multi-family arrangements" to include the case of children involuntarily separated from their own parents. Which would count as misery and hardship, in any part of the world.
So clearly I was homeless all the years I lived with roommates.
The point is that, as children, they're supposed to be able to live with their own families. In one of the richest urban areas on the planet, after all.
I just don't understand. I moved out of the Valley because even as a techie, I felt priced out.
There are PLENTY of great places to live in this country that aren't Silicon Valley and cost a fraction of how expensive it is to live in the most contested real estate in the world.
Houston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Denver are fantastic places, and you can have your own land (with a yard!) for a fraction of the cost.
I just don't get the mentality here that every other place but the Valley must be Siberia.
East Palo Alto resident, here. Not at all surprised to hear this; our town used to be the last place on the Peninsula where non-engineers could afford to live, but those days are gone. See here for some history:
- Until mid-2016, virtually all of the high-density rental homes in East Palo Alto were owned by a single absentee landlord in Chicago, who was hell-bent on chasing out as many residents as possible so they could reset rents to "market rates" or (better) knock down the apartments and build condos. More at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/02/16/exclusive...
I'm sad to read some of the comments. "If you can't afford to live in your neighborhood, get the hell out" is a sentiment that will definitely come back to haunt you.
Why is that a bad sentiment? People downsize homes all the time.
Anecdotal, but my own parents moved away from Chicago to rural Michigan when the economics just didn't add up. Chicago housing is hundreds of thousands, where as rural Michigan you can buy a good single family home for under $100k. Cheap enough to support a family off of a minimum wage job (and I mean real minimum wage, $8.50 an hour for Michigan).
58 comments
[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadIt's a pity that they don't teach journalists how to think. The problems in housing shortage and increase in housing prices is because of zoning density restrictions, not that more people are moving into the neighborhood. These zoning density restrictions are a market inefficiency called "rent-seeking" which uses politics to give a special interest group, in this case landlords and existing home owners a portion of unearned wealth over tenants and home buyers.
The proper fix is to pass laws that prohibit the zoning density restrictions or that reverse the "rent-seeking" laws.
One gets tired of journalist writing these kinds of stories without citing the reasons and the fix.
Where I live in NYC, many of those on the left claim that they want affordable housing and want people to have an affordable wage (or lower housing costs in order to make the wage they earn go farther), yet they are for laws that limit zoning density.
This phenomenon zoning density restrictions related to affordable housing is written about by many, but here is a good article by Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser who is an expert on cities.
Build Big, Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
It's a pity that you can't humbly disagree with someone over a differing opinion, rather than framing them as ignorant and unaware of some basic truth that you're privy to. It's not just off-putting, but it's also inaccurate.
Your feeling on "rent-seeking" and zoning policy are hardly universal, and there are many scholars that have written alternative views on the subject.
Please cite your sources. The rent-seeking is one of 3 forms of microeconomic market inefficiencies (the others are [negative] externalities and information asymmetry).
Prices rise because of scarcity. Zoning density restrictions causes scarcity. "rent-seeking" is use of politics or other means to create a market inefficiency that helps a special interest gain increased wealth, not through wealth creation. Zoning density restriction are from politics.
There is universal understanding that zoning density restrictions (which is using politics to create scarcity) create higher housing costs. I don't know anyone who states that zoning density restrictions do not cause higher housing costs.
So, please cite your source.
Think about the technical inaccuracies you see in articles concerning subject matter you're an expert in, or an event you were witness to. That's par for the course in most articles, few journalists bother to understand what it is they're writing about, or probably don't have time to. Then go into how journalism is ratings driven and going through huge cutbacks, and you have standards where it's more important an article be provocative and feed into their readership's confirmation bias than make people think or propose solutions or only work with hard facts. It's more provocative to blame white technocrats than government or landowners for not wanting an population density to go up because they like their views or impact the environment or it would devalue their property.
Of course, my opinion is Silicon Valley should just not be there. Anywhere with a high barrier to entry of cost of living at that level will be discriminatory, also, what good is making that much money if most of it getting sunk into cost of basic living that doesn't improve your quality of life or meet the life style of someone making half as much somewhere else has and creates issues for those that lived there that don't work in tech. Tech needs to spread out, so there is space for others. You would think of all industries, physical proximity would be less of a factor.
that wasn't a feeling. it is a fact that rent seeking is a market inefficiency.
> there are many scholars that have written alternative views on the subject
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Another person quoted in the article correctly identified the housing supply issue. "For all that, Hernandez-Goff thinks the systemic problems – housing shortages, wage stagnation, inequality – are beyond her." Since she doesn't have the political clout to solve that issue, she offers some short term first aid. "She wants to open a school parking lot to cars and RVs at night, so families with children can sleep without being disturbed; she thinks lack of sleep and stress are contributing to her district’s low test scores. And she would like to install washing machines in schools for those without homes."
While the Hernandez-Goff agrees that they are systemic problems, she does not mention how to address housing shortages. Many think that one needs to spend money to create more (affordable) housing, but the real solution is simply to address the market inefficiency caused to benefit special interest groups.
That she cites wage stagnation and inequality makes it sound like she doesn't understand the zoning density restriction because eliminating the rent-seeking zoning law restrictions eliminates the inequality and wage stagnation is not an issue because housing costs will drop meaning people can afford more on the same wages.
Actually, it can be both X and Y. In this case, both zoning restrictions and the influx of FaceBooglers.
That statement might be true if there was not technology that enabled us to build tall buildings -- steel frames and elevators for example.
Fix the zoning density restrictions and the markets will automatically fix the expensive housing regardless of the demand.
Come to Manhattan and you'll see what I mean.
In what way has Manhattan fixed the problem of expensive housing?
From Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser:
"...Radically upping that supply would leave far more New Yorkers able to rent something for a reasonable price on the free market, instead of allowing rents to continue to rise for most while a select few win access, via waitlists and lotteries, to a separate class of apartments at below-market rates.
Once upon a time, New York City understood this. In the early 1920s, we were building 100,000 new housing units, accessible to people across the economic spectrum, every year. As a result, the booming city remained affordable to working- and middle-class people like my grandparents.
How was this possible? For one, the city’s regulations back then were relatively modest, focusing primarily on safety and light. Thanks in no small part to that limited red tape, the cost of producing new units was relatively low, and — surprise, surprise — they got built." (The article continues)
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
For another, most of the land hitherto occupied by those 1920s apartment buildings was at the time either vacant, or occupied by dwellings of extremely low density (farm cottages or light industry).
And a whole bunch of other factors. Bottom line, anyone who thinks that if only we could just "cut the red tape" we could start building 100,000 apartments a year again in the NYC of 2016 is engaging in more than a bit of wishful thinking.
He is an expert on cities. I live in NYC and much of Manhattan is low density (4 story brownstones). It may not be building 100,000 apts. per year, but it would be far, far greater number than what is being built today.
I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually.
If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing.
Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.")
Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example).
I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.
How willingly would you be to pick up and move in this situation?
Maybe I am misunderstanding something but is seems foolish to me to sit in a single location and complain that the right economic conditions for my success are not at my current location and refuse to move (especially ironic since we live in a capitalistic market economy, jobs are constantly changing and resources moving around).
This is a large-scale socio-economic uprooting. Many of them lack marketable job skills and the necessary finances to allow location portability.
We're experiencing a very large shift in financial wealth where the level of poverty in the country is increasing at rates not seen since The New Deal and that's the entire point: the Bay Area is an extreme example of this where economic disparity is so extreme. Add to that the socially minded nature of California and you have those people who "complain" of the lack of a social safety net at the Federal level or even a lack of a fair balance of distributing economic wealth fairly.
edit:
And our "capitalistic market economy" is anything but capitalistic, in fact it is predatory upon the poor and economically disadvantaged. [1],[2],[3],[4]
[1] http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/american-capitalism-vs...
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
[3] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/making-money...
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...
It did, this has improved, however it's structurally temporary. The effects of it are that it's also continually displacing larger numbers of the middle-class as our trade policies are moving what remains of our higher paying manufacturing base, what used to make up that lower to middle part of the middle-class blue collar workers, to lower paying countries.
So, if you think, with your single graph that poverty isn't increasing you're not looking at what's really happening structurally in the US economy and with all of the relevant data around you.[2]
We have College tuition that is unaffordable and an aging, out of work, unemployed, or underemployed workforce, with skills that have not kept up with the rapid change in the shift of American jobs and poverty truly is on the rise.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-s...
[2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/03/jobs-s03.html (Uncertain how credible this site is)
2) You bring up a lot of other issues that are certainly real problems but they are mostly claims about what might happen in the future. That makes them speculation not fact. And sure, your speculation might end up being true and some of those speculations could lead to an increase in the poverty rate[A]. But you should be careful to frame what you are saying as a prediction about the future not a statement about something that has already happened in the past.
A. Personally I think you're wrong. But that's speculation too!
What evidence do you have that these people are too foolish to understand our economy? Or too stubborn to do what is needed in order to succeed?
"Several homeless families whose children attend local schools told the Guardian that they had considered moving to cheaper real estate markets, such as the agricultural Central Valley, but there were no jobs there."
Buy why not look evan farther? The US is much larger than California. There are places which much cheaper costs of living in the midwest and the south. Seems stubborn that you must stay in California.
But if they were guaranteed a life in Illinois or North Carolina, maybe they would move? You and I don't know, but there is no reason to suspect they are simply being stubborn or foolish. It's entirely natural and rational to want to live, with your kids, in roughly the same region continuously.
Keep race baiting Guardian. Nevermind 30-40% of people working here are Asians.
It's not "race-baiting" to accurately acknowledge that white flight happened. Demographic trends show white people moving back to the cities, leaving minorities without a sure place to live or a rooted community to belong to, usually because of the connection of class and mobility.
And how does that compare to other hand picked districts in the US?
What's the point? You mention SV and you get clickbait? Why are schoolchildren in other parts of the US not worthy of a story?
The vast widening of differences in income levels in the past 20 years might have might have something to do with it. That, and the fact that it's the cradle of an industry that prides itself on "changing people's lives for the better".
So clearly I was homeless all the years I lived with roommates.
The point is that, as children, they're supposed to be able to live with their own families. In one of the richest urban areas on the planet, after all.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/10/east-of-palo-altos-eden/
Some reasons:
- Predatory lending resulted in a 35% foreclosure rate on single-family homes since 2008, half of which are now owned by people who don't live in town. More at http://archive.peninsulapress.com/2013/07/16/squeezed-by-the...
- Until mid-2016, virtually all of the high-density rental homes in East Palo Alto were owned by a single absentee landlord in Chicago, who was hell-bent on chasing out as many residents as possible so they could reset rents to "market rates" or (better) knock down the apartments and build condos. More at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/02/16/exclusive...
- The price of local housing has jumped since Facebook opened their new campus, offering a $10,000 to $15,000 payment to employees who live within 10 miles of One Hacker way. More at http://www.reuters.com/article/facebook-benefits-idUSKBN0U02...
I'm sad to read some of the comments. "If you can't afford to live in your neighborhood, get the hell out" is a sentiment that will definitely come back to haunt you.
Anecdotal, but my own parents moved away from Chicago to rural Michigan when the economics just didn't add up. Chicago housing is hundreds of thousands, where as rural Michigan you can buy a good single family home for under $100k. Cheap enough to support a family off of a minimum wage job (and I mean real minimum wage, $8.50 an hour for Michigan).
http://www.zillow.com/homes/Decatur-MI_rb/