Comments on: ‘Affordable housing’ bad for quality of life – Mountain View

By: It’s Search Engine Tuesday! [Burbed.com]

It’s Search Engine Tuesday! [Burbed.com] — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:38:40 +0000

[...] just one result the lucky looker found! Affordable housing’ bad for quality of life – Mountain View. That sounds like a NIMBY worldview, absolutely perfect for a Real Bay Area (RBA) city like [...]

By: madhaus

madhaus — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:38 +0000

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.

By: Garrett

Garrett — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:43:02 +0000

Sorry for the comment that I posted, forgot to check the spelling.

By: Garrett

Garrett — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:27:48 +0000

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.

By: RealEstater

RealEstater — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:02:41 +0000

More on urban planning being right for the times:

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/105262/Suburbs-a-Mile-Too-Far-for-Some

By: Pralay

Pralay — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:50:04 +0000

BTW, regarding suburb dying discussion, here an interesting video from ABC News.

By: WillowGlenner

WillowGlenner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:48 +0000

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.

By: Crossroads

Crossroads — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:08 +0000

did everyone work 12 hours days back in the 70′s like us tech people do?

By: bob

bob — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:43:16 +0000

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.

By: WillowGlenner

WillowGlenner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:14:03 +0000

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.