Check out that median FB salary to help figure out why housing ownership is beyond reach for so many.

That $240K median salary at Facebook doesn't even tell the whole story. Bonuses, RSUs, and other incentives bump the median compensation up over $300K. A single-income household is possible if you are a techie at Facebook.

My main concern over this housing measure is: What KIND of housing? More rental units that benefit a handful of landlords, or housing that residents can actually OWN?

I read on MSN today that three of the top 20 food stamps cities in the country are located in the Central Valley. Their suffering could be alleviated by moving some tech jobs there where land is cheaper and labor is abundant.
Train people and put them to work.
Do not expect Mr Zuckerburg to relate to the plight of the less successful. He bought the houses surrounding his house so he could have privacy.

Lead the way, Robyn. Or is that just advice for others and not something you are willing to do yourself?

I can easily afford to live here. But many cannot. It was merely a suggestion that would alleviate the pain being suffered by those who cannot afford to live here.
Even Tesla opened their gigafactory in Nevada where the land is cheap and labor abundant. They are hiring now. Amazon also has seasonal jobs in Nevada.
For those desiring to stay in California, the Central Valley is perhaps a viable alternative.

I'm glad you're clear about the fact that your advice is only for the poor people, and they should get out so rich folks like you won't be inconvenienced. It was cute when you started by pretending you cared about "the plight of the less successful."

LOL,
Why are you such a bullying ideologist?
If you could just read clearly through your anger you'd realize that Robyn was talking about idea of moving JOBS not people, to places where housing is cheaper than bay area.
The poor people, whom you care so much about can stay here. After all their living cost is forcibly subsidized by private property owners.
At the moment there is excess of jobs here vs housing.

Hahaha, mike, I triggered you so much you're following me around different articles now. Sad!

LOL,
Do you think people opposing your views of forced social justice and wealth redistribution should be confined to reading just one article?

Hahaha, no, go ahead, keep posting. You'll prove to everyone how not triggered you are. You're single handedly solving the affordable housing crisis because I'm living rent-free in your head.

LOL,
Is your purpose on these forums to "trigger" people? Does it give you cheap "high"?

Hahaha, mostly to mock barely literate out-of-town shut-ins who spend their brief existence posting here. That it's so easy to trigger you is just a nice added benefit. Keep posting through it, you'll prove everyone wrong by just posting more.

In response to mike rose you said:

“Why are you such a bullying ideologist?”

Please demonstrate how LOL is acting like a “bully”? You said:

“If you could just read clearly through your anger you'd realize that Robyn was talking about idea of moving JOBS not people, to places where housing is cheaper than bay area.”

Yes, there is a strong force to have the “lucrative” jobs move away. Wouldn’t that cause a significant loss of property value? Just asking. You said:

“The poor people, whom you care so much about can stay here. After all their living cost is forcibly subsidized by private property owners.”

There we go again with that old tune. “Rent Control” or “Affordable Housing” is not a subsidy paid by the private property owners. The Affordable Bond IS a subsidy. However it is chosen by the electorate in the initiative. The political system is fair, you have the resources to convince the public to reject it. Thus you are not “forced” if you have an equal opportunity to convince the electorate to reject it. You said:

“At the moment there is excess of jobs here vs housing.”

No argument there, but smiths invisible hand is proving to not work. The jobs simply are not providing earnings necessary to “Sustain” the market prices. The industry has not built enough housing. Thus the political process which is eaqual to collective bargaining is producing new market reforms. That’s all. You said:

“Do you think people opposing your views of forced social justice and wealth redistribution should be confined to reading just one article?”

Where the electorate makes the decision, it is not “forced” social justice. The foundation of the Republic allows for this kind of action. You forget your High School Civics class. The country is funded by “wealth redistribution”, it is called taxation. But that is also determined by the political process that the nation and the state are designed under our constitutions. Why write ideas that can be questioned? As far as the public knows with the pattern of posts you write, you proclaim you are being bullied. But who is the bullied and who is the bully? One can cut and paste your attempts to publicly ridicule and personal attacks. They are so long, you would proclaim I am trying to “Monopolize” the conversation. But it would be your words.

LOL, I believe you must also post under YIMBY? You (or both of you) never give a rational, positive or workable suggestion or plan. You just whine that you don't have enough money to buy in this area and WHY isn't Mountain View overbuilding until you can afford what YOU want? Your "whining troll" act is counter-productive and tedious.

Nope, just post as this name. Nice positive solution you're proposing of "get out, poor people." Seems like the whiners are the rich folks who complain about having to see poor people around and would rather they move out to the Central Valley. How dare the proles demand a place to live!

Given the FB median salary, $60K per year in housing costs is in line with what lenders expect; 25% of income is reasonable for housing. It works out to $5K per month. I expect that Apple, Google, Nokia, Broadcom, Yahoo, etc. have similar pay structures to FB. Do you want wage defaltion?
OLO, your posts are becoming more of a name-calling invitation than a discussion. You statements do not further debate. Does it not make sense to you for people in Manteca or Fresno, for instance (hardly poor), who commute daily to the Bay Area, to have jobs closer to their homes? It is a vast valley.
And the local economies would benefit from the current service workers who are not directly employed by the big companies. This could reduce the use of food stamps and provide a path to home ownership (and wealth) instead of paying rent every month.
Thank you for the words of support mike rose.

Yeah, workers from Manteca and Fresno should be able to live in Mountain View if they want. Why don't you want these people living among you? Just because they don't have as much money as you doesn't make them worse than you.

LOL,
I never said I did not want anyone living among us. (Although, I would like to avoid active criminals.) It was simply a logistically sound suggestion with which you disagree. And you are drawing unsupported conclusions.

You may recall that many of the people you distain - homeowners- are workers, too. They earned and are earning the money to pay their mortgages. They made lives for themselves. Some just happened to get here before you did and invested in homeownership.
So, you are now projecting you own feelings.

In response to Robyn you said:

“Given the FB median salary, $60K per year in housing costs is in line with what lenders expect; 25% of income is reasonable for housing. It works out to $5K per month. I expect that Apple, Google, Nokia, Broadcom, Yahoo, etc. have similar pay structures to FB. Do you want wage defaltion?”

Robyn, you speak as though the only customers that housing should be provided for is for those people. In effect only building for one customer is like trying to have only a hammer in the toolbox. That is your choice, but you simply cannot expect realistically that if you and your peers do not provide more, the pubic will be able to take any political actions to engage legitimate “market reform”. You said:

“OLO, your posts are becoming more of a name-calling invitation than a discussion. You statements do not further debate. Does it not make sense to you for people in Manteca or Fresno, for instance (hardly poor), who commute daily to the Bay Area, to have jobs closer to their homes? It is a vast valley.”

But at the same time you ignore any real debate. You tend to ignore any observations that indicate that your approach you advocate will eventually cause a significant public policy impact. You said:

“And the local economies would benefit from the current service workers who are not directly employed by the big companies. This could reduce the use of food stamps and provide a path to home ownership (and wealth) instead of paying rent every month.”

That is if earnings are in pace with the proportion of the rent increases. Thus if a “service” worker gets a 5% income raise in a year, you would be entitled to a 5% increase in that housing markets rent. But you know that that has not occurred. And your peers want to enforce rent increases on everyone. You’re making a proposition that you have no proof has in fact happened.

I invite public policy debate. This was a suggested starting point not a fait accompli.
Clearly, there are too many people in too little space. Some want to build up, up, up: others do not.
All around the Valley one can see residential building growth. Who will be able to afford to live in these new tenements, I do not know.
It is less expensive to live elsewhere. I just suggested the Central Valley because three top food stamp eligible cities are there and they are relatively close, according to the article. There are also many other states that could use an economic boost.

And that's precisely the hypocrisy: you want others to move so that you can ensure only the wealthy here get to stay. This is why I asked you to go first, to demonstrate your deep concern for others through your actions rather than just your words. Talk is cheap.

There you go making insulting comments again. Read your own words.
I am not asking anyone to move. I merely request that they know what they are in for once they arrive, ie., congestion, crowding, the cost of living, etc.
You are demanding that people already here move to make space for the masses you would like to see here.
So we will disagree.

This isn't a country club you get to keep for yourself. You don't have to go anywhere, but you don't get to stop more people from coming.

To LOL: where are your constructive ideas? You just seem to want everyone to do whatever necessary so YOU can live here on YOUR terms. You sound very similar to YIMBY who posts the same philosophy.
Making rude comments to other posters seems to be your tactic, but how far has that gotten you? Maybe you could think of a more rational and possible way to buy into real estate in the area, or perhaps moving where you can afford? Nobody can have whatever they want, just because they want it. Robyn and Mike Rose give reasonable, honest and constructive suggestions, but perhaps working for something isn't what you want to do?

It's quite telling that all of you can only conceive of doing things that directly benefit you ("buy into real estate in the area"). Your lack of imagination that anyone cares about things beyond their own benefit should be surprising, but honestly isn't. Let's be honest, you don't actually care what my own situation is, you just want to use it as a rhetorical cudgel. Your assumptions are the most revealing, however.

It's not that no one cares about what your situation is LOL.....some of us just don't think we need to subsidize your desires. Rhetoric cudgel....nice rhetoric, sounds lovely but what does that actually mean?

I've never asked anyone to subsidize my desires. As I said above, the assumptions you make about my situation speak volumes about your own views. I could be a landlord, fully housed, living in an RV, or a tenant. It doesn't change the content of my views, but you need to make assumptions because you can't fathom anything except looking out for yourself.

Those who prefer to keep Mountain View as a private country club are looking to have their lifestyle subsidized, when you deny people the ability to build enough housing and are perfectly happy with rising home prices.

Oh wow, MV has a private country club? Where, I didn't know MV had one! I know Los Altos has one, where's Mountain View's?

When you want to make Mountain View a place where only the wealthy can live, that's what you're doing. Best to confront that now rather than play coy.

I agree with MVwoman, offer something constructive. Closing down discussions with unwarranted slurs discourages others from participating with their own comments and observations.
I came here to see what our neighbors are discussing on the issues.
Perhaps LOL is an acronym for loser of losers. You have lost me.

Sick burn, bruh. I don't see how "get out, poors" is constructive. If Robyn were doing more than concern trolling, they'd take action (i.e. move to the place they suggest everyone else move to). Instead, they're perfectly happy Building The Wall here through inaffordable housing. The nice liberals in Mountain View have a lot more in common with Trump than they want to admit. Here's something constructive: build enough houses for everyone and don't prevent new housing from being built. That way you'll directly help the people you profess to be so worried about.

Affordable housing is just a euphemism for highly subsidized housing for those that win the lottery of being selected. These lucky winners get the right to rent or buy million dollar plus units for about 350k. Talk about huge huge subsidies. There will never be enough subsidized housIng for everyone who thinks they deserve the right to live in Mtn View. Of course politicians will promise you they can solve this problem. Such nonsense.