Time for bold imagination

Thank you for this admission to luck of the draw - or rather timing. "Yes, all of us worked hard to buy a home. We saved money, we made house payments, we held onto jobs, we sacrificed in other areas until we could manage the monthly costs of the roof over our heads." Renters do this every damned day but are still subject to the nastiest attitudes and comments about how "they just need to work harder and save - just like we did." There are renters working 2 and 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads - and yet they have absolutely no housing security. No ability to settle down and raise their kids in one community. And then there's the retort - "not everyone can live here - go somewhere else." Yet this is now a cancer throughout the country, anywhere near jobs. Don't even get me started on what it does to seniors who don't own a home. A story of a 97 year old who died within a week of getting an eviction notice after renting a home for 66 years in Burlingame made international news coverage, yet there was absolutely no shame, no concern, no humanity afforded to her or to others who followed in her footsteps. No policy changes, no significant senior housing built, no boldness on the part of elected leaders, and SM County remains mired in a lack of true concern about "others."

Mr. Simon,

May I assume from what you write that you paid approximately $100,000 for your house in 1980 (if it would sell now for at least $2 million, as you state, which is TWENTY TIMES what you paid) ?

With all do respect, did you perhaps misstate by a few digits here when you say TWENTY TIMES. I know of hundreds of people who bought dwellings here around that same year, and their property is now worth maybe TEN TIMES purchase price, if that. People who bought those same dwellings in 2000, now have a gain of about 2-1/2 times purchase price. Certainly a far cry from 20 times.

Point being, posting information that stretches beyond reality is fodder for those who are prone to be resentful of those who "have," (and worked VERY HARD TO GET what they have now), instead of learning from them as to how they can obtain a home also.

Thanks, for the article I am not sure I agree. Over the past year I noted the numerous Planning Commission Meetings due to no developers wanting to bring projects forward. I also looked at the number of projects with approved planning application two rather large projects Hillsdale Terraces and Essex at Central Park were approved February 16,2017 and August 28, 2018, respectively. Perhaps a future column could be about conversations you had with each asking what is taking so long. I also see plenty of project being built, so the homeowners are not doing a great job if what was described is true.

While there are complaints about projects needing have Union Labor and contracts, I do not see Union Labor demanding housing over office, nor are they refusing to work on office projects to help increase housing production. Perhaps another future column could be with labor to get their perspective and solutions to increase housing production in a meaningful way.

Lastly, I am hearing a large number who benefited much like you have who are house rich and are demanding more housing be built. Can we get a future column with some of them who sold their house, set aside they need, moved into market rate housing, and donated the rest to affordable housing causes?

Right on, Mark. As a supporter of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, I consider it a goal that the people who work service jobs in the commercial nodes -- each town's "downtown" strip, along ECR or streets that branch off of ECR, like my own town of San Bruno's San Mateo Ave and San Bruno Ave -- should plausibly have the option to live at a walk or bike commute distance from their jobs. There's no way that happens unless we get ambitious. Many cities are complaining about their RHNA numbers, but those numbers are honestly not even that hard to hit. We just have to buckle down and agree on how we're going to do it, producing a wide variety of different housing types, especially the "missing middle" / "gentle density" types, to meet different people's needs.

Obligatory disclaimer: I do not endorse any specific project or plan at this time, and as a Planning Commissioner I will evaluate any such specific project or plan if and when it comes before me, balancing its specific pros and cons. I'm just articulating the general principle that we ought to house our workforce.

I'd really like to see a state law that explicitly recognizes the problem of the jobs/housing imbalance. Like, make it so that we have an analysis of your local J/H ratio, and if it's above some cutoff, then you _cannot_ issue permits for new commercial space, without identifying specific new housing for 120% the number of people expected to be drawn in by the commercial space's new jobs. (You'd want a method where the jobs and housing are both counted in concentric rings, discounted for distance, and similar for the new housing. You can always just do mixed-use projects that cover their own housing need. And if you've already built some housing recently, you can "bank" that for credit towards the next commercial project. You could even allow some horse-trading, where you get a community benefit package from the commercial, and then hand it off to a neighboring town to fund housing there -- but the distance-discounting should ensure it really has to be a _neighbor_. Palo Alto's answer to where housing should be built can't be "Morgan Hill".)

Current situation brought to by a handful of greedy home owners who won the lottery, aim to prop up their own property valuation, pay as little in taxes as they can, accumulate intergenerational wealth, claim that everyone wants the same thing they do but don't deserve it because they haven't worked as hard, feel renters have less rights, demand unlimited street parking for themselves but complain about new comers causing congestion.

Developers, in contrast are local businesses that contract with union labor to undertake actual construction work but have to pay whatever jacked up prices property owners demand. As a long time homeowner myself, my community's character would be better off if it embraced change.

Thank WWII for living the good life. America was on the top of the world. People born during the Depression were so few they could pick their job because the Boomers were so many. The huge number born after the war needed tending by this silent generation. One thing I hope Simon looks into is the cost paid for the environmental movement on housing cost. i think Foster City was the last in line for "if you build it, they will come." True that we'd probably have homes replacing salmon but maybe the great unwashed wouldn't care. A house is not a home.

Really great piece. 2 quotes that resonated with me:

"Too many people I know do not understand how much luck of the draw had to do with where they live and the “character” of the neighborhood they prize so highly — and at a price others cannot afford."

This is very true. Philosophy is no longer a required subject in many schools/universities but the concept of "moral luck" is something that everyone should look into and see if it resonates with them.

"perhaps it is time for the definition of a neighborhood’s character to include who can live there, not just what they live in."

Absolutely true. People shaped the communities we live in, and continue to do so. If we, the local residents, decide we want it to change, we absolutely can change it and still feel like it's our community. Resisting and forcing the state or federal government to intervene is just going to make everyone unhappy.

This column brought to you by Bohannon Development Co.