A wonderful story. Also, a great example that when it comes to building truly AFFORDABLE housing for lower income workers, the issue is not zoning. The issue is FUNDING.

For-profit developers would never participate in such a project, the ROI does not exist or is too small. Non-profit developers are only able to create such housing when significant sums of outside $$$ is provided to help them accomplish their goal.

"The project relies on funding from various sources. Santa Clara County donated the land and set aside $6 million from the Stanford Affordable Housing Fund, which comes from fees Stanford University pays to the county that are reserved for affordable housing within a 6-mile radius of the campus. The city of Palo Alto agreed to kick in $3 million, using the proceeds from fees that real estate developers pay the city, which are set aside for affordable housing. Meta put in $25 million. The Santa Clara County school districts are being asked to pay $50,000 for each unit that their employees would get priority access to."

Wow this is so sustainable! Let’s just keep doing this.

Just an Observation,

This is NOT GOOD regarding housing as a whole. To only build for employees of a government is not even addressing the real problem. What this is is using funds to keep paying teachers lower than the need to to afford housing. This is really not the right approach.

What we need is STRICT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING MADNATES.

They are the only tool proven to work

This is a moment when those who care about truth should stop and observe. The aim of this project is “to provide affordable housing for teachers and other school staff, allowing them to live near their jobs.” Who is choosing to celebrate its progress? Who is choosing to make snarky comments instead? Shouldn’t we be taking note of factors that led to SUCCESS so we can repeat them in the future?

“To only build for employees of a government is not even addressing the real problem.”

@Steven doesn’t seem to share the goal of providing affordable housing for teachers. He favors higher pay for them instead. Raising teacher pay might be even more difficult than increasing the supply of affordable housing, IMHO.

“Wow this is so sustainable! Let’s just keep doing this.”

I think this was a response to the point that I truly want to drive home: “the issue is not zoning. The issue is FUNDING.” Implied: a strategy of solving the housing crisis by seeking increased alternative funding is obviously bad strategy (without even saying why!). Three thoughts:

1) Pretty cheeky to say this on an article which used this “bad strategy” with GREAT SUCCESS.

2) What is the better strategy? Continue down the path which CREATED the housing crisis in the first place? Rely on FOR-PROFIT developers for most funding, which yields 9 market rate units (to tech workers) for every 1 affordable unit (that over half of existing residents must share)?

The true entity that is “blocking supply” of “affordable” housing is the City Council itself.

Every single time it approves a project where almost 90% of units are market-rate, they are turning a blind eye to the needs of those most harmed by the housing crisis: lower and average income workers.

3) Big Tech is a key cause of high housing costs, it needs to contribute $$$ for affordable housing. Meta donated $25 million this time. SUSTAINABLE FUNDING is possible: we need Prop 15, which reforms Prop 13 so that Big Tech pays it's fair share.

[Post removed due to being off-topic]

Just an Observatiuon,

I think it is time to kick out the Private partners because they are not acting in good faith. They so far only produce 10% of affordable housing of the projects they get passed

Public/Private PARTNERSHIPS are EXTORTION, because the groups promoting them are violating anti trust laws and trying to claim they are unfairly treated. Top prove my point more the California Apartment Association practices secret discounting to its members exclusively which is illegal, here:

Secret Discounts and Rebates

Section 17045 of the UPA prohibits the “secret payment” of rebates and unearned discounts, or secretly extending to certain purchasers special services or privileges not extending to all purchasers purchasing on like terms and conditions, to the injury of a competitor and where such payment tends to destroy competition. This Section applies to competition at both the seller and the purchaser level. ABC International Traders, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Corp., 14 Cal. 4th 1247 (1997); Diesel Electric Sales and Service, Inc. v. Marco Marine San Diego, Inc., 16 Cal. App. 4th 202 (1993). Although the statute itself is unclear, the better view is that the “like terms and conditions” clause applies to secret rebates and unearned discounts, as well as to special services and privileges. G.H.I. I. v. MTS, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 3d. 256, 272 (1983).

If you go on the CAA website, it advertises SPECIAL discounts to members only.

And now they want to prevent the people from seeing it, the remove my posts.

@Leslie Bain

"A wonderful story. Also, a great example that when it comes to building truly AFFORDABLE housing for lower income workers, the issue is not zoning. The issue is FUNDING"

Yes. Funding is the elephant in the room that HCD and the state don't want to address, assuming someone else should solve that.

Just an Observation,

NO MORE EXTORTING MONEY FROM THE STATE OR FEDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!!

The PRIVATE sector in 1970 till today has said over and over again PUBLIC projects cannot provide quality affordable housing.

NOW THEY SAY, GIVE US MONEY TO BUILD QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!!

The PRIVATIZATION experiment of housing that started in the 1970s is a FAILURE. Let the PRIVATE sector sell only the ones they want to sell. Let the PUBLIC sector take their customers away by building their own PROJECTS again. Since the PUBLIC/PRIVATE partnerships NEVER worked. And use SPECIAL fees to fund them from the PRIVATE sector, that is unless the PRIVATE sector stops trying to EXTORT us.

The PRIVATE market will make profits on a MUCH smaller market. Investors should at this time redeem all their private investments in the private equity markets. And stockholders should sell their shares from the public market. This is called a CORRECTION right?

These guys messed up from the beginning and continue to do so, so let them die, or at the very least make much less money because they failed to do their jobs.

I understand your concern about funding and its impact on building affordable housing. However, it's important to note that limited funding doesn't mean we shouldn't try to build more homes for those in need. The housing crisis is affecting millions of people across the country, and waiting for funding to magically appear is not a solution.

There are ways to creatively address the funding challenge, such as partnerships between the public and private sectors, leveraging innovative financing mechanisms, and streamlining the development process. By working together, we can find ways to build more affordable homes and address the housing crisis, even with limited funding.

Additionally, addressing zoning laws and regulations that limit the building of homes is also crucial in addressing the housing crisis. By removing unnecessary barriers to housing development, we can help increase the supply of affordable homes, making it possible for lower-income workers to have access to safe and decent housing.

In conclusion, the funding challenge shouldn't be an excuse not to act. By working together, we can find ways to build more homes and address the housing crisis, even with limited funding.

Just an Observation,

Stop using buzz or keyword phrases regarding housing. We waited long enough to give the PRIVATE sector time to perform. They FAILED.

Until we see performance, the PRIVATE sector has to do the FIRST wave on its own. They made so much in profits right? We gave them enough freedom to do more damage to the community and now there is reports showing homelessness is a danger to peoples lives in general. So making people homeless does real damage.

This was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (Web Link "Premature Death Among Older Homeless People in California"

Specifically "Five-year mortality was 3.5 times higher than that in the general population."

These people are KILLING people by their actions, and are not being held accountable.

No more political spin, no more promises, get acting and show us proof of good will, and we will adjust. But we cannot afford to put up money first and hope to see results. THat was what happened in the 2007 bailout of the real estate disaster. And we got nothing but a worse bubble now.