Ideally, we deal with a housing shortage by simply adding more housing.
Ideally, we deal with a housing shortage by simply adding more housing.
Kate Vershov Downing

Curiously no comments here address the underlying issue, and this is the closest. Everyone seems to agree that more people are wanting to live or move there. But nobody is asking the question of whether the city should expand to accommodate then. Instead it is taken as a given that it must.

The council is clearly making decisions designed to limit growth. That is the prerogative of the members of the council and the property owners in the city. I find nothing wrong with that position. What has happened, however, is that the council has failed to understand they can’t cheat the market forever.

Specifically, if you want to curtail population growth you have to curtail job growth and other major incentives to move there. Or you have to accept that price is a measurement — and indicator of the market. Instead of worshipping at the temple of “affordable housing” recognize that by letting the laws of nature and economics work the “problems” will be “solved”.

If the residents of Palo Alto want to keep the population down, so be it. I have no right to force my way into there. If you’re a renter and don’t want to, or can’t, pat for the added cost the additional benefits bring you, move out. If you are a property owner in that boat, sell high and buy (elsewhere) low — or rent it out. Don’t puff up about it, just do it and move on with your life. When people do that instead of bitching about it online, the market will begin to correct.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.