‘Affordable housing’ bad for quality of life – Mountain View
Mountain View Voice Mountain View Voice: Letters to the Editor (June 13, 2008)
‘Affordable housing’ bad for quality of lifeEditor:
My wife and I moved to Mountain View 40 years ago because of the quality of life. Now, after making mortgage payments for 30 years, our home, our largest asset, is being threatened. Advocates of “more affordable housing” want to turn Mountain View into a place of multi-family tenements.
If I wanted to live in a slum, I would move there. Instead I chose to live in Mountain View. I say if affordable housing supporters want to live in a high-density slum, so be it. However, don’t turn Mountain View into a slum.
Konrad M. Sosnow
Trophy Drive
Well said! Bravo! It’s time the Real Bay Area took a stand against against affordable housing. The more affordable housing becomes, the less special it becomes. Let’s fight back!
Cheers to Konrad for having the courage to make this statement! By the way, Konrad paid just $2203 in property tax last year, while some of his neighbors probably pay $13,000. Which makes sense since Konrad paid $106,500 for his house in 1977, and other people in his area just paid $1.3 million.
Now if only we could get rid of some of the jobs that Mountain View has. That’s clearly the biggest problem.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Well his kids are out of the schools so why the heck would you want him to pay for some other kids education? You must be a greedy slum dweller.
More seriously, has anyone figured out what happens to a town when house prices stop rising and sales drop like a rock? It seems like with all the people paying property taxes having thier house reassessed and fewer of the low basis properties being turned over, that we should end up with a historically bad budget crunch in a year or so.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Even Palo Alto and Atherton face a state mandate to “turn their cities into slums”. Check out the multi-part cover story here:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/toc.php?i=253
June 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Real Estater,
Thanks for the link. It’s certainly interesting.
For example, I learned that if I my income was $125K, it would be classified as “moderate” in Palo Alto, even though it would be in the top 5% nationally.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The amazing thing about this is that 30-40 years ago, 1978 – Mountain view was a low income city compared to the surrounding areas and his street, Trophy drive was right in the middle of low rider central. The “Mountain View Los Altos School district” at that time, was something to be avoided. The elementaries were fine, you were right with your neighbors. But once Jr High hit, if you weren’t on the Los Altos/Blach (sp?) side, you got stuck with GRAHAM jr high, where the kids from Mr Sosnow’s neighborhood went and that meant gang activity, pot in the bathrooms, etc. How do I know this? Because I actually WENT to Graham jr high for a year in the 70s. There was a huge problem with the “mexican kids” stealing the “white kids” homework and putting their name on it and turning it in. It was a dump. Then at the high school level at that time, there were 3 high schools- Mountain View which was on Castro where his kid probably went, another school called AWALT which is now called Mtn View high, and Los Altos high. The old Mtn View high had federal school lunches, because the kids were so poor. Thats where Trophy dr was. Mtn view high has been torn down and now the downtown Castro is there, but back then, there wasn’t anything on Castro st but an old movie theatre that played “Gone with the Wind”. The fact that Awalt high, which is in Los Altos, is now named “Mtn View High”, is one of the key reasons Mtn View lost its gangland image. This clown writing this letter is the type of person who hitched a ride on Silicon Valley and now feels entitled.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
WG, thanks very much for the narrative. I starve for this kind of story and wish we could read more of this in local and online newspapers. It’s only thanks to people like you that our cities retain some sense of history and things are placed in perspective. Sometimes I wish that real estate agents, the ones passionate about their core neighborhood, would maintain a history section on their website with pretty much that level of knowledge and tone.
Grateful DreamT
June 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I think Mr. Sosnow ought to look into having his street renamed to Trophy Wife Drive.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
It makes me feel better about renting to hear from goobers like this. Who wants to find themselves planted for 30 years alongside the likes of Sosnow? Can there be any doubt of his reaction, should he find in his vicinity a small noisy child, or a lawn a quarter-inch higher than he likes, or a house painted in a color that’s not bog-standard?
June 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
does it really matter what the past was? seriously.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Crossroads, it does matter what the past was if somebody bought a low income house in 1977 and now claims that he bought some high end house and that “if he wanted to live in a slum he would move there”. Sorry, but he did buy a slum. Well not exactly a slum but certainly not high living in 1977. He caught a windfall, by voting for unfair laws like prop 13, and has convinced himself that the past was something different than it was.
Here is something on the old Mtn View high school where his kids went to school.
http://members.aol.com/Nap98/mvuhshistory.htm
As the students from Los Altos and then South Mountain View were pulled to Los Altos or Awalt, the diversity of central and north Mountain View became clearly evident in the student body of Mountain View High School. By the 1960s and to its closing day, the student body of Mountain View was the most ethnically and economically diverse school in the area. This caused conflict, not within the high school, but with the way others viewed it.
On November 28, 1976, the San Jose Mercury News published a “Rap Session,” or open discussion, that a reporter conducted with students from Old Mountain View High School. Today this article offers great insight into how students of the high school felt about the prejudices directed towards Old Mountain View High.
The following quotes are excerpts from what the students said in the article:
“We’ve been regarded by other schools as having all the tough guys… The two other schools in the district have a higher income level and more white students. I guess they look down on us because we have so many different (ethnic) groups…Some body has put it in their heads.”
http://members.aol.com/Nap98/mvuhshistory.htm
Honestly, I feel a real sense of astonishment with a certain group of long time bay area residents and this man is one. These are the people in my parents age group (my parents do not live in Northern CA). I have found that this group, who allocated a HUGE WINDFALL for themselves by voting for prop 13- is in a massive state of denial as to their own place in the wealth of this valley. The elderly in CA are the biggest “entitlement class” I have ever seen. This is one of the reasons I am so negative on the US dollar. I think these old people like Mr. Sosnow are going to vote entitlements for themselves until the country is completely bankrupt. Thats already happened in California. The tone of his comment implies he thinks he worked for something or deserves something just by being here. Well, he GOT something. He got a huge windfall that his kids would die for. But thats not enough for the greedy geezers.
June 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I don’t know. On one hand, I’d like to know the history of a neighborhood I’m buying in, only to have some idea of where people’s attitudes about it come from. On the other… honestly, it seems to me like in the last ten years the “historic associations” of a house have come to be held like a club over the buyers. Like the whole trend of “Write me an essay to prove you’re worthy of the intangible qualities this house will confer on you. Is your money REALLY good enough for me?”
I was watching some realtor commercial a few weeks ago in which the agent greets lookers with, “Hello, let me tell you the story of this amazing house.” I would find that a big turnoff. Don’t spin me some awful realtor-porn romance. Tell me what the house can do for ME, because that’s what I’m going to be paying for.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Actually I find WG’s story of 1977 Mountain View pretty intriguing. It also fits in with the gossip I’ve heard about Sunnyvale’s high schools. There used to be a third Sunnyvale high school: Sunnyvale High School. It opened in 1956 and closed in 1981, supposedly due to Prop 13. But one long-time Sunnyvale resident told me the district wanted to mix the school populations more, since north Sunnyvale’s population had more Hispanics than the southern, whiter population. Now students in north Sunnyvale must travel up to 5 miles south to the two schools there, Fremont and Homestead, which are only 1.5 miles apart from each other.
From looking at the district’s history page, no other high school was ever closed. They blamed it on “projected declining enrollment” as well as Prop 13, but I wonder how much of it was economic discrimination, or out and out racism.
Despite the fact that Homestead is within 200 students of its peak enrollment, and that North Sunnyvale has no high school, there is no talk of reopening Sunnyvale High school. The property is leased to private schools, daycare, and a church.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
madhaus, I don’t know much about Sunnyvale schools but my recollection is that they were even WORSE than Mountain view high if you can believe it. Basically the more east and the more south you were- the worse off you were back then. This perception continued from Mtn View, through Sunnyvale, through Santa Clara, San Jose and stopped at Almaden. But to your point about economic discrimination- it is also true that enrollment in high schools just fell off the map in 1980. It wasn’t just prop 13. Schools shut down everywhere- maybe not high schools but elem and middle schools. Palo Alto used to have Gunn, Cubberley and Paly. Cubberly is closed, Gunn is now Paly right? There were 3 HS, once. Mtn View/LA had Awalt, Mtn View and Los Altos high, plus a myriad of private schools like St Francis High. Same all the way down the peninsula. In 1980- whoosh, the kids were gone. A few things happened. 1) Baby buster generation, 2) Silicon Valley started up- started to get too expensive for young families who moved more south to blossom valley, 3) the new residents were more inclined to send kids to private schools because a lot of “ivy leaguer” types came out from the east who wouldn’t even consider public schools no matter how good they were (whereas local Norcals viewed private schools as useful for catholics only). So there were NO MORE KIDS. Thats why most of these closed. I am in my mid-40s now and did not grow up here exclusively so this is just my recollection from a kids eyes.
Another piece of history you all might be interested in. In Palo Alto a school called El Carmelo elementary which is still there- actually BLEW UP from a gas leak in (I think) 1967. It was sometime in the late 60s. It was this elementary school that had some problem with the gas lines and they had these wierd evacuations all the time for gas leaks, the kids were herded off to the grass area every day like a fire drill. Then one sunday, with no kids on campus the school BLEW UP, huge fire, right in the middle of PA, known as “El Carmelo the burnt marshmallow”. It was huge frightening news at the time.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks WG for enlightening us with the MV history. Mr Sosnow benefited greatly from changes happened at MV in last 40 years. But then he does not want it to change anymore for obvious reason.
Anyway, care to a write letter to MV Voice about this issue?
June 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Thanks WG for enlightening us with the Mountain View history. Mr Sosnow benefited greatly from changes happened at MV in last 40 years. But then he does not want it to change anymore for obvious reason.
Anyway, care to a write letter to Mountain View Voice about this issue?
June 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
A couple of quick comments on the topic of this thread:
1. Forcing “Affordable Housing” is bad policy. It will only yield a small number of units, allowing a small number of people to “cut in line”. There is no reason to do it. It’s totally socialist policy.
2. To solve the long term housing shortage (if there is one), they should do some serious urban planning to build “real” cities, with high rise offices, shops and apartments, in a new area away from existing established neighborhoods. My suggestion would be to rip out the decaying parts of San Jose and build “NYC 2.0″ there.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
WillowGlenner, your history of local HS lore drew me back in time, thank you. I had forgotten all about AWALT….omg! FYI, though: Gunn HS in Palo Alto is still alive and kicking : http://gunn.pausd.org/home/web/
June 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
This is a good start: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9593254?nclick_check=1
June 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Crossroads: the past matters immensely. It gives great insight on arcane policies and neighbor reactions, on what’s possible in your street, what would be a struggle and what just won’t happen. It shows evolving, ongoing trends in gentrified neighborhoods particularly established ones. Sometimes it enlightens on the genesis of your block, points out to possible flaws in similar housing constructions, and can even indicate what level of racism or acceptance you can expect from a specific neighborhood. You certainly also want to know about past land pollution (esp. if you have kids) and quality of soil (if you have a garden). When economy turns bad, crime level generally trends back to what it was in the past. I could go on and on, besides pure curiosity there are myriads of pragmatic reasons to be interested in a neighborhood’s past.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
the $5 gas thread is still going, still going, still going… since burbed took the 5 newest comments off the masthead, here’s a link to that discussion, now on page 2 of the blog. Oh yeah, it’s up to comment #180 and austindweller has called someone (you’ll never guess whom) out for boorishness. Meanwhile I try to start a car thread, a localized version of Herb Caen’s area code game.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Actually, the 5 newest comments is back. For now. I’m still experimenting.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
While I can certainly appreciate the discussion about the economics of the recent past in Mountain View, I think one fact has been overlooked: Mr. Sosnow is assuming that the affordable developments that Mountain View is required to set aside land for will lower property values and cause problems for surrounding residents. With high quality developers such as BRIDGE Housing building exceptional projects like their North Beach Place project (http://www.housingfinance.com/ahf/articles/2005/august/014_AHF_12-3.htm), with a Trader Joe’s leasing retail space, affordable housing is not the same as the public housing that has been a plague in many communities. Who would have an issue living in a development like this???
The fact is that many studies have shown that affordable housing developments have not impacted surrounding property values (including the US GAO and Coopers and Lybrand), and that public safety concerns are impacted much more by the design of public space and the ability to control that space, rather than the mere inclusion of a lower income population to a community.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I would recommend the book Suburban Nation to all burbed readers, especially in view of comment #20. The book’s premise is that our suburbs are destroying the very thing they claim they support: community. They treat community positives as negatives and plan overly huge high schools on the outskirts of new developments instead of central to them, then they become traffic snarls. Castro Street in Mountain View is good city planning: narrow streets slow down the traffic, wide sidewalks encourage pedestrians. The exact opposite of good city planning would be downtown Cupertino, which is essentially a giant traffic sewer at the intersection of 8-lane Stevens Creek Blvd and 10-lane De Anza Blvd (includes left turn lanes). Tell me, where would you rather hang out and enjoy the evening?
June 15th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
In the east coast people will freak out when they hear about projects, friends will tell visitors which part of town is a project and never go there.
I am totally against affirmative action, but permits to build dense housing is a totally different thing. You are not going to get an entirely different class of people moving into the neighborhood, though it will certainly affect housing prices.
The long boom in BA has made some people like Sosnow into an entirely different class of people, I can drive around the neighborhood and tell which million dollar houses belong to low income family. This is what Prop 13 does to Cupertino, same effort as affordable housing, wealth redistribution through public policy.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
downtown Cupertino
Isn’t that sort of a contradiction?
June 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Stories like these really show the nasty underside of the BA in some respects, but to summarize, it also portrays basic human nature. I actually appreciate Mr. Sosnow’s blunt statement, but even so, I almost feel that he’s not really getting all of his true feelings out on the table.
I won’t single Mr. Sosnow out, but rather I’ll translate what I hear so many old farts and longtime residents of the area say over and over again. Here in Alameda, the story is the same: A new development is proposed, and behold- out come the “Keep Measure A!” signs. The same claims that building more homes-especially lower income homes- would ruin the quality of life.
One can’t help but wonder who’s quality of life that they’re talking about, because it surely isn’t the people that they’re trying to keep from moving in. No. This is all about them and nobody else.
But there’s something a bit uglier about the whole fear of having lower income housing for these people. I think its nothing more than outright classism and racism. Perhaps not so much classism since I know I make well more than most of these older folks in their little rancher homes that they paid zilch for. The reason I think it’s racism is because when was the last time that you heard of anybody complaining about new homes being built in any of the hispanic/Asian/Black neighborhoods? Do they get up in arms when young hipster white people want to move to parts of Oakland and basically gentrify their neighborhoods? No. But heaven forbid if anyone wants to build anything remotely affordable in any of the predominantly white neighborhoods. To these people, it means that Hispanics, African Americans, or other ethnic groups will surely move in, which means more crime which would soil their perfect white picket fence world.
That sounds disgusting, but I think that’s really what this is all about. If people who don’t want low income housing moving in would simply say that, it’s be more honest than hiding behind supposed environmental laws.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:43 am
bob, if you really want to hear some of that blatant racism down here (not that I’d imagine you’d want to), chat up some of the older Cupertino residents. When they bought their small homes for zilch, the place was full of white families. Some of them are incredibly nasty on the subject of Asian in-migration, despite the soaring property values they brought with them.
I remember one of those old farts asking me where I lived (this was almost 20 years ago) and when I said “Cupertino” he replied, “Oh yes, Cuperchinko.” It was my first dealing with unfiltered anti-Asian racism down here, most of my co-workers with young engineers like me, mostly from somewhere else. I remember getting up and sitting somewhere else, pointedly.
Recently I dealt with another of those mouth breathers. it’s like they sense if there’s no Asians around it’s okay to express these sentiments. The guy went on and on about a one-car accident/injury, no doubt caused by “one of these Chinese drivers on his way to an Egg Foo Young Palace.” He kept going on about Chinese-owned stores with “signs I can’t read.” I pointed out that such stores create jobs and taxes for Cupertino, which he didn’t want to hear, and it was clear he didn’t want any funding for schools benefiting their (as opposed to our) kids. Meanwhile my 9 YO kid was actually watching the accident victim getting loaded in the ambulance and said to him, “What are you talking about? That driver is white!”
I really wish those haters would just move out if they don’t like it, at least they’d be well compensated for their trouble. I have met far more nicer older people here, but I’ve met enough jerks who think such racist sentiments are acceptable conversation topics.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am
just imagine if there wasn’t prop 13 to protect these people. there’d practically be a race war since the new people would be kicking the old people out from increased property taxes.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Racism is unfortunately a common aspect of humanity, as much as I hate to admit it. What it comes down to is that people like to live around people like themselves. The BA isn’t different. It seems like Parts of town are predominantly white, others black, some Korean, Chinese,and so on. Then on top of that, you’ve got classism with distinct parts of the BA reserved for the affluent and well-to-do.
Admittedly, there was some residual old-school racism back home. Mainly old folks who spewed the same crap their parents told them. I’d say that this sort of racism has been re-purposed to despise “carpetbaggers” from FL, and the Northeast, which really opens up fresh wounds and longstanding bad feeling towards “northerners”. I have to admit that I too am not totally thrilled with the recent trend of priced-out people moving to my home state. But then again, I can’t really talk because me and my Wife will also be moving to another area to take advantage of the lower costs of living.
So the nastiness still exists and probably always will. Its just that in the BA, I’ve noticed that racism is very cleverly hidden behind little anecdotal reasons such as congestion, hinted harm to the environment, and the lower quality of life that it would supposedly create. The raw underlying reasons are still nothing more than the displeasure people get from experiencing change and dealing with people who are not exactly like themselves.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Suburbs the way we know them will die. Regardless what RE dude says. He knows a little about the world outside US. BA is a big collection of crappy houses and an example of poor urban planning. Either it’s a PA slam or MV. They all look like a mix of scenes from Hollywood movies from 60th and WWII era documentary. Who may enjoy living in 50+ yo infested houses, that look ugly and fell like crap? It seems to me that most home owners in BA feeling temporarily here. The rest who want to live here for life are going or already completely rebuilt their houses.
This way or another all cities in the area will turn into real cities, i.e. more pedestrian friendly streets, public transportation, good looking high-rises. This land can’t stand more people living suburban lives. Just not enough land and infrustructure.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I’ve heard the whole “suburbs will die” comment on a number of occasions. But one thing I wonder about is if the opposite could actually occur. If everyone is right and suburbs will die, then that must mean that everyone is going to move to the cities, which as we see even now are big quagmires of people fighting each other over space which in turn makes them prohibitively expensive and unrealistic for a giant swath of the populace.
The ONLY missing link between cities and suburbs are job bases. The only reason people live in cities is because of their jobs. We have the abilities to totally do away with office-based work environments. We could just as easily be working wireless from home. Either that or companies could setup satellite operations in smaller cities and suburbs. The benefit would be mutual: companies could afford to pay employees less in less expensive areas but since the cost of living would be less, the employees would be happy because their pay would afford them a comfortable living.
We need to re-think the way in which we work and become less dependent on cities to provide the means. Again- if what everyone says is true, then cities are very quickly going to become violent, dangerous, utterly uninhabitable places to live in the future.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Again- if what everyone says is true, then cities are very quickly going to become violent, dangerous, utterly uninhabitable places to live in the future.
There are suburbs that are like that already – Detroit, Compton, Richmond.
Part of it is definition: is Mountain View a city? is it a suburb? Is LA a city? or is just Downtown LA a city?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Part of it is definition: is Mountain View a city? is it a suburb? Is LA a city? or is just Downtown LA a city?
Los Angeles: Six suburbs in search of a city.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
My take on what people here think is a suburb are places like Stockton, Manteca, and other extreme outlying burbs where the commutes are insane and the traffic to and from is awful. The extreme driving distances from these places will cause those to live there to make changes because the price of fuel will swiftly strip whatever savings they made on their houses.
But to me, people in the BA already have a lot more tolerance for commuter pain than other places. Many work in PA or SF and commute to and from these places. Somehow, commuting to SF from PA is ‘ok’.
But I recall the last time I was in Nashville, the traffic was so light that you could commute 40 miles away from the city and it would only take maybe 30 minutes to get there. You can save an insane amount of gas just by not having to stop and go all the time.
I tend to think that large cities have already screwed themselves. Or rather- the people who live in them have screwed themselves by initiating behavior that only makes each passing generation have to pay the price higher and higher for the privilege to live there.The maximum pain level was reached during the bubble. We might see some relief in the form of somewhat lower housing prices. But there will likely be another bubble in another 10 years that will ratchet that pain level even higher.
Medium sized cities are experiencing the most growth in the country. They benefit from the influx of people from the larger cities. Large cities will continue to bleed people, talent, and money until it ultimately affects their economies to the point that some effects of that pressure will be relived somewhat.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
madhaus, on the subject of the history of Cupertino I actually think you have your facts a little wrong. I don’t know how to check these facts though.
In the 70s, Asians (called Orientals then), could not move to Los Altos or Burlingame or many of the westside addresses. I have heard there were laws enforcing this once – but I find that hard to believe due to the constitutional aspects. There definitely was discrimination in the 70s and before towards minorities by the real estate industry. Anyway 3 towns where asians could live were:
-Foster City
-Cupertino
-Mtn View
I had many asian friends in Mtn View and they went to Mtn View HS, but there were other minorities in Mtn View high (primarily hispanic) that diluted Mtn View.
Cupertino and Foster City, however, were largely asian in the 70s. Or, they had a very large asian to white student ratio (there were only Asians and whites, then).
The hilarious result of this fact is that Foster City and Cupertino evolved to be the best school districts in the area- WAY ABOVE Los Altos, San Mateo etc., even though the property values in Los Altos were much higher than Cupertino, esp then. The asian student mix in Cupertino at a time when all the Los gatos and Los Altos kids were sitting around smoking pot is the legacy of that time. Of course now, time passes, and Cupertino now has the same student population as every other school. But its reputation was cemented years ago.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Los Angeles: Six suburbs in search of a city.
———–
Or a city that expanded and expanded and expanded. Then it burst and became suburb.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
BTW, Great thread! I am learning a lot of history about BA. Thanks to WG, Madhaus, Bob and others.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
WG, it is entirely possible that Asians were steered to Cupertino and away from other cities. There were restrictive covenants in property deeds in the 1950s but I do not remember when they became unenforceable.
Cupertino was not as highly Asian as you remember in the 1970s, as the census figures show otherwise.
2000 – 44% Asian/Pacific Islander. (50% white, 2.6% 2 or more races)
1990 – 23% (all Asian/Pacific Is, of which 13% of total population was Chinese, 4.5% Japanese, Indian 1.9%)
1980 – 7% (all A/PI, of which 2.6% Chinese, 2.6% Japanese, )
1970 – 2.8% Asian/PI, broken down as 1.7% Japanese, 1% Chinese, 0.1% Filipino.
Source: Bay Area Census
For comparison’s sake, here are Foster City’s census stats.
2000: 32.5% Asian (not including Pac Is); 4% 2 or more races
1990: 21.6% Asian (12.3% Chinese, 4.3% Japanese)
1980: 12.6% Asian/Pac Is (6.7% Chinese, 2.3% Japanese)
1970: 7.3% Asian/Pac Is (5.0% Chinese, 1.6% Japanese)
Foster City and Cupertino have had different ratios among their Asian populations; FC has always had more Chinese, Cupertino began with many more Japanese, reaching parity in 1980). But neither was ever “largely Asian in the ’70s.” The school district numbers always had a higher percentage, as school-age Asian families moved in, replacing retirees and aged who were mostly white.
Cupertino school district is now majority Asian. I do not know where to find historical racial compositions of school districts, though. But the CUSD website does provide racial breakdowns of all their schools.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Pralay, my comment on LA is a reference to a play by Pirandello. Don’t give Calif resident any more ammo on how little culture we have.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Applause to madhaus and WG on the Cupertino and Asian topic, I have long forgot about the racism aspect. Even in the late 90s I was hearing that white folks refuse to sell to Asians in Los Gatos or Palo Alto, hence they move in the cities close by.
Maybe Fremont will be the next good school district, given its high concentration of affluent Chinese and Indian population.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Crossroads, your point about Prop 13 helping people staying in their homes well taken. However, if the housing prices have skyrocketed, wouldn’t helping those living in million dollar houses (and making 500k tax free profit) the last thing a society would need to worry about? I am sorry if you live in a million dollar house you’d better be able to pay the 1% tax.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Rick,
“if you live in a million dollar house you’d better be able to pay the 1% tax.” I cannot defend this. Picture you bought in a blue-collar neighborhood and made a just-decent living, then retire. Over 15 years, gentrification takes place, and your property tax is suddenly out of reach, and you retired long ago. Why should you be forced to reverse-mortgage your property to pay a suddenly hefty tax, or forced to leave the home that you bought the year it was built because the new neighbors drove up your house’s price?
Sure gentrification isn’t fun for everybody – newcomers complain about untended lawns and old timers complain about the snobs with their fancy cars that settled in. But to penalize someone because his neighborhood was gentrified, that just does not seem fair. It’s not about profit and prices, but about not ejected them from the neighborhood they earned the right to live in.
Also in my opinion society certainly should worry about how it treats its denizens who worked their whole life and yet never moved.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Last time I checked, California wasn’t the only state with Senior Citizens.
What do non-Prop 13 states do? How do they deal with this?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:01 am
burbed – any other state had that annoying little problem of seeing property values doubling every ten years since WW2?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 am
burbed – any other state had that annoying little problem of seeing property values doubling every ten years since WW2?
That implies California saw property prices double every 10 years since WW2.
Which is not true:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html
In fact, it doubled just once in a 10 year period: 1970-1980. Around the same time Prop 13 was passed. Go figure!
FWIW, Washington state had a bigger growth since 1950: 3.87 vs California’s 3.65. Mass comes pretty close too.
I’m pretty sure both those states have property taxes.
Come on DreamT, there’s a reason Florida exists.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:55 am
burbed – no the implication is not on California but on many neighborhoods of the bay area _only_.
Don’t they solve this in Florida by creating senior citizens ghettos, surrounded by walls and secured by a security guard? Could there be less cross-generational mix in their neighborhoods than here?
June 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Why should you be forced to reverse-mortgage your property to pay a suddenly hefty tax, or forced to leave the home that you bought the year it was built because the new neighbors drove up your house’s price?
Because every other state has an equal and fair tax system. California to my knowledge is the only state that has anything like Prop 13, whereas older residents-particularly those who were conveniently around when it was passed- reap a great benefit from it. In all the other states, property taxes are adjusted per the value of the property. The facts of life in those states has been that if you’re older and either didn’t save enough for retirement, or live in some monster sized house by yourself, then most often those who own those houses sell them once the taxes ratchet up enough.
What people don’t get who support prop 13 is that is didn’t solve the problem of lowering the cost of living except for those who bought earlier. For anyone else coming afterwards, the cost of housing has gone up to nosebleed levels simply because older people do not have any incentive to move and thus free up the supply of housing. To make it worse, those same protected people are usually the ones who oppose anything new being built.
The thing is that in most other states, there are actually some forms of tax assistance for older residents who need it. Property taxes are also lower in many other states, yet they have no budget problems. They have a bellwether tax system that correlates to the value of property in general. Since everyone is on a level playing field in those other states, more taxes can be collected. It also assures that property values do not get too overheated. As it is now, older CA residents actually have nothing but pure incentive for seeing their homes accumulate value. But if they also had to pay the adjusted property tax on that accumulated value, then there would be some sort of penalty.
We can’t keep on having the system be all one way, where older more established residents keep getting this huge windfall while all the rest of us have to pay dearly for their comfort. Repeal it.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am
By the way, prop 13 is not the only thing protecting senior citizens. See prop 60 and prop 90.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:50 am
bob – alternate forms of tax assistance are/is a satisfactory answer to my concern about gentrification. One detail – just because all other states do something does not mean it is the panacea.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Other states do not have the same severe budgetary problems that CA has.So perhaps indeed their tax systems are the Panacea.CA’s schools are ranked 47th. So at least 46 other states must be doing something right then. Much of these problems are tied to prop 13. So wile prop 13 might be helping senior citizens, it is harming younger people, kids, etc. Gentrification in large is die to escalating property prices, which as pointed out is also tied to prop 13. It is a cause and effect situation. It didn’t solve anything, but just concentrated the burden onto one group.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
bob,
The more I read what you write, the more I feel the need to improve myself in writing my thoughts in a coherant way. I agree with you in more than one way. Your posts above are examples of replying in a very appropriate, detailed manner to refute the opposing thought line.
I thought just like you and realized that those old farts linving in BA/CA are in majority. Also I would be paying taxes for them with no benefits in return. The move to Austin was one of the best decisions I have made in my life. We have a very comfortable, affordable living without finacially committing ourselves to anything in Austin.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Here is a start:
coherant = coherent
more than one way = more than one ways
without finacially committing = without having to commit financially
June 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am
austindweller – there is no opposite thought line. Read again: I am not advocating anything regarding Prop 13, only cautioning about gentrification impact. Bob is posting with his own agenda regarding Prop 13 (‘Repel it’).
However I must say I disagree with the logic that if a majority of states do something, they must have the panacea. Counterexamples include death penalty, gay marriage, right of women and ex-slaves to vote, etc. If 46 states have a higher ranking than California, it does not mean their tax system is the panacea and California should carbon-copy it. It just means California’s tax system isn’t currently adequate to support its schools.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:03 am
DreamT,
I think were sorta on the same page. But I don’t think we can be too general in regards to Prop 13. Gay Marriage an the death penalty are two totally different laws and not related to Prop 13. It isn’t a pissing contest about how much better one state is over another. Rather it’s the fact that California’s tax system is flawed to the point where the majority of other states are more correct in their own revenue management systems, taxation included. If a majority of the other states are capable of managing their tax situations, then to me this indicates that perhaps California should enact changes. It isn’t a case where Prop 13 is so forward-thinking and liberal and thus beneficial. The opposite is true.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:16 am
>>However I must say I disagree with the logic that if a majority of states do something, they must have the panacea.
This interpretation is wrong. The correct interpretation, is “If majority of states are doing something and they are financially better of than CA and treat all of their citizens fairly without any advantage based on “who came first”, then they are obviosly doing something better”. At least you seem to agree that prop 13 is unfair to a class. Do you really belive that “being one of the first migrants to a state” should be a criteria for providing tax benefits ? If so, then I don’t have anything to say. I am a proponent of “free market” and hate any concessions made by government. Yeah, and I don’t like rent control either. And even when you make consessions, the criteria used for making these concessions should make some sense. All I have to say to those old chaps who are getting benefitted by prop 13 is “in a fairly taxed system, you either afford to pay the taxes in the area where prices have jumped up or you take your profit and move to area where it does not cost so much to live”. Living in a area where prices increased and still having low cost basis for tax purposes is nothing but unburdoning your fair taxes on to newcomers who buy and making them go through a hell when it comes to benefits.
If prop 13 was repealed, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Gentrification is just one factor. When policies are made they should be fair to everybody.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I agree with bob mostly about Prop 13, however, I think real estate taxes in other states are mostly higher. I will be interested to see if someone has done research on how real estate taxes are related to qualify of local schools.
Another thing to note, Prop 13 was probably established when there were rampant inflation, a lot of folks were losing their homes simply because of inflation (that does not make Prop 13 right either, but at least can have some sympathy). The doubling of housing prices between 1970-1980 occurred when inflation was among the highest in the last century, houses actually lose value in real terms. Now we are seeing the long term effect of a short term solution that has never been abolished.
DreamT, if inflation rises a lot of those with ARMs will be losing their homes, it is just a fact of life and risk of owning a home. Unless you are in the camp that advocates rewriting their contract there is no way to save them. As I said in the beginning, I am against all affirmative action, when people talking about rights and ignoring whether it makes sense, we are so screwed.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Re prop. 13 since that’s your topic of discussion, I tend to lean on seeing it repelled – except that I’d want it done in a phased approach so as not to create an unfair forced exodus of priced-out old-timers.
Re. my previous points, bob we’re of the same mind that “California should enact changes”, my point was that California shouldn’t necessarily emulate their tax system (which it would if it’s the Panacea). Your second posting was much more moderate in that aspect and I agree with the new formulation.
Austindweller you’re asking “Do you really belive that “being one of the first migrants to a state” should be a criteria for providing tax benefits ?” My answer is: not at all. I believe that being priced out of your neighborhood should be a criteria for tax relief. If you were one of the first migrants but are not priced out because you did well enough, by all means you ought to be taxed fully. Hence my first response to bob.
I can see why others would be satisfied forcing people with valuable assets to convert them to generate cash flow and pay increased taxes. But in my opinion a primary residence is not just an asset – for poorer older residents who have no other assets to speak of, it’s their home not a cash cow.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Rick – not a bit in favor of helping ARM borrowers. My concern only goes to people who fully own their home, have retired for a while already, have few other assets if any, and would now see a dramatic increase in yearly taxes.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I think there was a recent poll that indicated that 70% of Californians support Prop 13.
It makes sense – everyone sees themselves eventually being homeowners, and thus benefiting from this.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am
>It makes sense – everyone sees themselves eventually being homeowners, and thus benefiting from this.
Only with the assumption that RE will increase invalue. If not there is no benefit. Since these cities have developed in terms of industrialization, there is nothing remaining to grow. In fact corporations are slowly moving out. So it’s a big question whether there will be any benefit for those who buy now. For those who bought 20/30 years back a case can be made for the benefit.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I don’t feel totally sorry for any of the old folks here who have owned for decades, or before Prop 13 was passed. If the worst came down to worse and some of these older folks had to sell, then what are we talking about- what, a MILLION dollars in profit in some cases? They could easily move to just about any other state, buy a home twice as large as their old one, put the rest in the bank and basically live like wealthy people for the rest of their days. If they’re one of these “I can’t step my small toe outside the BA” types, then if they lived in PA, they could still sell, buy a nicer home in the East Bay, and do very well for themselves.
These people have made out like bandits and have many options- perhaps more so- than many of the younger people trying to get their fair share. Time to stop subsidizing a non-productive populace.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Exactly, and they are making it tax free, just by living in a house. I think there are far more people to have my sympathy for.
Lastly, there are senior homes available throughout the BA, they are for everyone (not just the old folks who’ve made 500k living in their home with low income), the dense housing that Mr Sosnow will object to.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
bob,
Good thoughts nicely written.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Bottom line,
Just as in life, economics function via natural selection. By meddling with this with shortsighted laws like Prop 13, the equation has been totally thrown out of balance. What happens when an increasing number of young professionals, businesses, and industries move elsewhere because they cannot afford the costs? Economic stagnation. Sure- that doesn’t seem likely now, but I know of one city where this happened: Boston. I lived there for a few years and just like the BA, it too has a large number of tech and research companies. But its lost something like 5% of its population since 2000. The findings are that the majority of those moving are young professionals for many of the same reasons as people have been moving from the BA: the cost of living and so on. MA is having some economic problems now. The damage is probably irreparable.
You see where I’m going with this. Prop 13 can and will do more damage to the economy if it it isn’t eventually altered or repealed.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
This is flip flopping for sure, but the fact that every year so many young people leave Boston to work at Google/Yahoo/Apple/etc in Silicon Valley sort of proves that Prop 13 isn’t a deterrent.
Maybe that’s the Prop 13 life cycle.
1. Graduate from East Coast
2. Move to California to work.
3. Decide to have a family and buy a house
4. Realize the horrible inequity.
5. Leave? Stay?
This is very complicated stuff.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
burbed, I wonder if Prop 13 would poll 70% positive if coupled with the fact that our schools have dropped to 47th in the country. In 1975 weren’t they first?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Ugh.. ‘made out like bandits’? ‘non-productive populace’? Either we’re talking about different people or we see the world very differently – wouldn’t be that surprising since I’m not American-born&raised.
As for projected impact of prop 13, I think the picture isn’t as simply negative as you paint it. Financing options evolves – in Japan they have multi-generation mortgages. Also buying a house is a choice, if this is comparatively too costly for young professionals and jobs are here, they’ll stay here and rent, they just won’t buy. So what? It won’t kill the local economy, just change youger people’s priorities. The only reason I bought in the first place was because in 2001 rent was so expensive it was a no-brainer. Finally as the job market gets increasingly dynamic, younger people need to stay nimble, relocate, can telecommute, and so getting attached to a specific place (by buying a house) will probably be less important in the future. It certainly already seems less important today than in the past, where land was everything, since people have increased mobility, flexibility in choosing a lifestyle and many more choices for investing their earnings.
Again not defending prop 13, just moderating the picture you’re painting.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I seriously doubt that young professionals are suddenly going to up and decide that the ball game has changed, and that they might as well give up and rent. Housing is a purely emotional purchase, much of which is driven by baby production. I can’t tell you how many people I know who decide to have kids, then suddenly, they HAVE to have a house. The fact that since 2004, more people have moved out of CA than moved in proves that when prices get too high, it has a negative impact.
In regards to Bostonians and much of the Northeastern migration, most of that migration has actually been to places like Raleigh,NC, Atlanta, and other Southern locales.
Most people assume that the BA is totally recession-proof and that tech will always be the one major industrial player in the area. The fact is that no industry stays solidly planted nor does it remain indefinitely successful in any given area over time. Just look at Pittsburgh,PA, Detroit,MI,Rochester,NY, and Boston,MA- the newest to join. In each city, they relied heavily on then-modern industry: Steel, Automobiles, Camera and optic equipment, and technology. Once opportunities dried up or the industries shifted, all that changed and in most cases, these cities are either shells of what they once were or simply falling further into economic problems.
CA has a unique problem where highly qualified professionals are being priced out of the market. If the BA eventually fails economically, it could very well have been the result of having lost a generation of new tech workers from none more than being priced out and shood away. I’ll be joining them sooner than later, so add me to the list of those who will eventually not be here to add my area of accumulated expertise to the industry.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
>>Housing is a purely emotional purchase, much of which is driven by baby production.
That’s not called an emotional purchase. That’s the logical next step.
>>The fact that since 2004, more people have moved out of CA than moved in proves that when prices get too high, it has a negative impact.
Isn’t the price “too high” because too many people want to live here?
>>The fact is that no industry stays solidly planted nor does it remain indefinitely successful in any given area over time.
BA is different, however. The weather here will not change, Stanford and UCB will not move, and smart people can meet any future challenges.
>>CA has a unique problem where highly qualified professionals are being priced out of the market.
Real Bay Area is expensive, but there are plenty of affordable areas in CA.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
People liking prop 13 depends on the question. Ask them “Is it fair that renters children’s parents pay a fraction of the property tax of owners children due to living in buildings owned by corporations benefiting from prop 13?” or “Is it fair that Warren Buffet pays 2200 on his 4 million dollar property while a family of 5 pays 5k on their 500k property” gets a way different response than “Is it fair for long term residents to be kicked out of their house due to rising property taxes?” or “Do you think someone else should pay more taxes?”.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Prop 13 was a terrible solution to a real problem, and it was made worse by all the add-on amendments that enshrined Prop 13 benefits for various other relatives of homeowning seniors.
The solution would have been tax relief to those on limited income, not tax rollbacks and limits that have nothing to do with actual property values. Allowing the rollbacks for corporations made it even worse.
Yes I benefit from Prop 13. But my kids suffer from underfunded schools. Sorry, I think the schools are more important.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Here’s a solution: those who benefit from Prop 13 should be ineligible for Social Security.
FWIW, commercial properties are the biggest beneficiaries of Prop 13. Companies tend to live longer than people.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad strikes again.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
bob – I don’t see young professionals giving up, I see a next generation of young professionals mostly not even trying. In my opinion due to urbanization, gains of productivity and increased population, real estate ownership (as in LAND and SFR) is destined to become more and more of a privilege, attainable by less and less people. I pray hard the same doesn’t happen with education and health although both are following the same trend. In terms of affordability, the bay area has plenty of room to get worse and as a recent thread showed, is nowhere near the top 10 most unaffordable places in the world. I don’t wish it at all to become as I described, but my hunch is that it’ll turn out that way – prop 13 or not. In my opinion, future families – in 30 or 50 years – will typically live in condo-type properties rather than SFRs. Or they’ll not even have the option to own the land, just the space between walls. With population increasing and natural resources (water, land, air…) not increasing as fast, I don’t expect future generations to have it as easy as we do wrt real estate ownership.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Bob is hardly a role model. The fact is that there are lots of ways to afford a home in the Bay Area. What is needed is a strategy. Let me give a few:
1. Start small, then move up, and move up again.
2. Buy a house, and rent out rooms to support your payments during the first few years.
3. Buy a dupex, triplex, or quad. After you have enough money, trade for a single family home.
4. Move up strategy 2: East Bay -> Sunnyvale -> Mountain View -> Palo Alto
June 18th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Ah, that move up theory again, which was nicely addressed by Gavin month back.
I am curious how many people, who vouch for this kind move up theory, moved up themselves within bay area.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Pralay – my experience was that moving up, I was forced to moved down the map each time. I think people need an extra bedroom before they can afford to upgrade neighborhood, at least the first 10-15 years of homeownership, so RealEstater’s strategy 2 would probably not apply, unless you’re an older homeowner, had some liquidity event, or can leverage other assets as collateral.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:35 am
DreamT, I agree. As Gavin pointed out correctly, it’s not easy to move up if property price appreciates faster than one’s income – unless he/she puts himself/herself into more debt every time he/she moves up.
Every time now and then I stumble on some homeowner or real estate agent, who always talks about moving up. Then I figured that they themselves did not move up in last 10 or 20 years.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Rick, it is MILPITAS that is becoming the next Cupertino school-district-wise. Check out the APIs over there even now, with Milpitas being a lower priced area. Way up there.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:14 am
On prop 13, it seems like some here don’t realize why this exists in CA and not elsewhere. The problem with CA is not prop 13. The problem is the constitution of CA, which allows a PROPOSITION SYSTEM, in general, which is a way for the public to put whatever they want on the ballot. Thats the problem. Most states have representative democracy where an elected official must put something on the ballot- not “THE PUBLIC”. When you allow the public to put something on the ballot, you get things like prop 13 and that recent school prop (prop 98, was it?) that mandates half the state money goes to schools and other idiocy. This leaves the governor and legislature with no choice. Due to the proposition system, CA will always boom and bust. There is no option. Arnold understands this and has tried to deal with it unsuccessfully.
On the notion of 13 though- one thing you guys may not realize is that when CA did have “good schools”, the perception of the public was that they weren’t any good. Like in the 70s- huge amts of money went to the school system, and yet their objective seemed to be to bring up the lowest kids (economic and/or learning disadvantage) to the mean, as well as a bunch of creative non accredited stuff at the high end. Those were CA schools, then. Lots of money going in and bad SAT scores coming out- even in the GOOD districts. The issue of spending all your resources trying to make sure the lowest kids can function in society is a problem many public schools have and taxpayers aren’t that interested in funding that (and in this case I agree). Schools in CA in the 70s were not worth the investment.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:43 am
RE,
You’re correct that I’m not a role model for the area because I do not intend to stay. I do not believe in the move-up theory. If you buy a home, you should so so because you actually like it. So if you can rent a nice house, why buy a crappy town home or apartment? Save up until you can actually buy what you want.I want to buy and be done with it. There- end of story. If I want another bedroom, I’ll build one onto the existing home.
I also don’t agree that young people these days do not try. In fact, we probably work harder.Back in the day, you could have an average job, make average pay, and buy an average home. As it is now, you have to make a HUGE amount of pay, work long hours, and then wind up with the same average home that an average living situation afforded people back then. If young people want to “make it” here, then they have to bust their keisters to do so.Either that or wait for tidy little crashes to occur and STILL pay out the nose.
You can still live a comfortable life in 90% of the country. Perhaps if more people thought like I did, the BA wouldn’t have such a problem.
Willowglenner, that’s some interesting insite into Prop 13 and CA’s system. Indeed, what you said makes sense. The problem with the system here is that new propositions get passed all the time… but then they NEVER get taken down, which over time strains the system to the breaking point.
I recall back in TN the state passed “TNcare, which was a sort of universal healthcare system for working families. The system backfired and almost bankrupted the state ( may that be a lesson to certain Democrats) In the end, the state repealed the measure and within a few years, the state was back on track to financial success. Had TNcare care been CAcare, it would have never been repealed because too many people would whine about it and therefore, still be costing the state dearly.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
did everyone work 12 hours days back in the 70′s like us tech people do?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
crossroads, nope. People of my parents generation didn’t do much of anything except complain about paying taxes. As I think I mentioned in another post, despite the fact that I love my parents, I am very concerned about the over-60 crowd in the USA voting entitlements for themselves until we are all broke. Demographically speaking, the elderly are by far the richest people in the nation, mostly because their peak earning years were characterized by a time when the USA was generating most of the worlds GDP. The 70s featured some of the most inefficient bureaucratic companies the USA ever produced, with a 9-5 work culture for ONE family member as capable of generating enough income to support a family of 5. When times got tough and taxes rose, at least in California, my parents generation passed a law to shunt their taxes onto their kids. Note that most social security recipients are *completely unwilling* to discuss modifications to the program despite the excessive payouts which far outweigh what they put into the program, and SS’s impending bankruptcy. Completely the opposite of my generation and most that post here- we put huge amts of wealth into social security and medicare and will receive nothing in return, we need TWO working parents to buy a home, we don’t have the same options as to schools that my parents did, etc. Fortunately the younger generation has a more substantive work ethic than the over-60s otherwise we’d be really bad off.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
BTW, regarding suburb dying discussion, here an interesting video from ABC News.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
More on urban planning being right for the times:
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/105262/Suburbs-a-Mile-Too-Far-for-Some
November 30th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Question here, what kind of affordable housing is being built. It is for someone who wants to buy a house that makes not enough mone due to the face they work in one of the fellow fields. Teacher, Police or Fire, City Worker, Nurse, Business Owner (non tech), Book keeper, Manager (non tech), Repairperson, Tradesperson (plumber, painter, and etc), Techs (non hight tech work), Union workers, other workers who make above low income wage but fall below what is high income wage. Are we talking about low income wage earners like Fast Food workers, cleaners, landscapers, office workers (non hi-tech), retail workers, drivers (non union or class A or B holders), teachers aides, workers tha make less then above wages earners.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Sorry for the comment that I posted, forgot to check the spelling.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Hey Garrett, you’re posting on some really old threads. Look at the comments above yours, nobody’s been here since 2008, and the article in question was also written way back then.
Anyway, low income is what it says, able to afford the house and making less than whatever the cut-off is.
Today’s house is from Mountain View, go to the main webpage and check it out.