
A Silicon Valley down payment could buy you an entire house in much of the U.S - akras14
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/16/a-silicon-valley-down-payment-could-buy-you-an-entire-house-in-much-of-the-u-s/
======
fourstar
> “My client was maxed out,” Wang said. “He wanted to be self-sufficient: `I’m
> independent. I don’t want my parents to help me.’ But now he’s realized he’s
> got to have that conversation with his mother to borrow a couple of hundred
> thousand dollars, just in case that situation happens again.”

Must be nice to have parents who can just loan you ~$200k to make an offer on
a 2 million dollar house in Sunnyvale of all places.

I can't get over how ridiculous the market in the bay area is right now.

~~~
froindt
>"the median home value is $961,600, according to Zillow."

Being from the Midwest, this is such a foreign concept to me. Looking at Des
Moines, $955,000 will get you a 5 bedroom with 3 full and 2 half bathrooms,
1.26 acres, 7037 square feet, and a 5 car garage. And that house has a really
nice interior too!

That house in the first picture of the article would probably be $100,000 or
so based on its size.

I understand larger cities offer a higher salary, and that the salary can more
than offset the cost of living increase, but it would pain me to think about
spending that much money on housing (whether renting or buying).

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-Greenwood-Ter-Des-
Moine...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15-Greenwood-Ter-Des-Moines-
IA-50312/794318_zpid/)

~~~
friedman23
The advantage is that even with the insane housing costs I'm still able to
save significant amounts of money. For example 2 years out of school a
developer can command $160k salary at the best companies (and those companies
have a lot of positions to fill). Assuming $3600 a month on rent you have
about $65k after taxes. (I guestimated most of these calculations in 5 seconds
so be easy on my math)

~~~
pmiller2
If $160k 2 years out of school is typical, I need to know where you work so I
can apply[0]. :P

In all seriousness, that is not a typical salary for the vast majority of
people in the Bay Area. Not everyone is a software developer working for a
company with money to burn.

\---

[0]: In spite of the smiley, this is also true.

~~~
binarysolo
That's a humblebrag, don't get baited. :P Yes you can get 160k 2 years out of
school if you're a top student and/or have awesome GitHub/sideprojects and
performed well at the company to own something, move up the chain, or are a
cleverer bear than your average.

------
elchief
There's no rational financial calculus going on.

It's part of the Pacific Ring Asian hot-money bubble. Same as in Vancouver and
Sydney. /r/vancouver has some good investigatory articles

$2 trillion left China illegally, and this is where some went

This doesn't end well, by the way. Neighborhoods turn into ghost towns because
"renters damage property". Great businesses close. Vancouver had something
like 30 empty multimillion dollar houses burn down last year.

~~~
shshhdhs
Are they burning the houses for insurance fraud, to cash out and essentially
launder the money?

~~~
elchief
I think it's more accidental fires from squatters.

------
tnt128
Bay Area has a housing affordability issue for people who are in non-tech
sectors.

For those in the tech sector, there is no affordability issue, only
entitlement issue

If they are married, both in tech, their salary will be in the 300k-400k
range, that's about 25k - 33k/month before tax, or about 15 - 20k/month after
tax. with today's interest rate, $1MM house will need a monthly payment $4k -
$5k/month including property tax. The couple will still have about 10k/month
left after paying the mortgage.

Assuming they are renting and are fiscally responsible, they should be able to
save about 70 - 100k on 300 - 400k income/year. which means they will just
need 2 years before they can save up for the down payment.

So where is the issue? The issue is they jumped their league - Sunnyvale, Palo
Alto, Mountain View, SF are the 'major leagues' \- foreign cash buyers, tech
execs or, more commonly , average Joe who sold their first house with $500k+
gain in tax free equity - (not hard to do in the bay area btw). First time
home buyer will have a tough time competing in this league.

Try the minor league instead, try east bay, dublin($900k), livermore still in
the $700k - both good schools but 60min+ away, or how about places like Newark
or Union City, still in the $700k, both within 30 mins drive (but so so
schools).

If they are struggling to buy a $2MM home because they have to buy in these
neighborhoods. it's an entitlement problem, not an affordability issue.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Or they buy smaller and have a condo and kids share a room

~~~
obstinate
Absolutely! I definitely feel for the plight of those making <$80k or so here.
But if you make more than that, I can't bring myself to have too much
sympathy. You can afford a 2br apartment, to max your 401k, to feed and clothe
yourself, and to take a few decent vacations a year, which is more than most
Americans get.

Separate bedrooms are not a human right, especially for children. Hell, my
brothers and I slept in the same room for a long time even after our parents
were able to afford a house with extra rooms.

You wanna see someone taking it to a beautiful extreme, check out
[http://5kids1condo.com/](http://5kids1condo.com/)

~~~
wapz
I don't think 90k/year in the bay area is nearly enough for even a couple (and
you mention children?!). A 2br apartment will go for $2500/month with a long
commute. I presume you're talking pre-tax 80k.

~~~
obstinate
2br in Sunnyvale can be had for that much with some looking. A buddy of mine
is renting a decently nice detached house with 3br for 3000/mo.

So the apartment costs 30k a year. Taxes will be quite low if a 401k are being
maxed -- maybe 15k in total taxes? So we have roughly 80k - 15k - 25k = 30k to
cover everything other than housing. This is very doable. It is not a lavish
lifestyle but it's more than most Americans get to cover the same slice of
expenses.

------
georgeburdell
I live in the Bay Area. My wife and I, early thirties and a few years out of
grad school, make about $300k combined and in our area (Sunnyvale) there are
maybe 2 or 3 houses for sale at any given time under our rough budget of $1.2
million, which would be below the median list value for a house in the city. I
say this as dispassionately as possible, but I would really like to know more
about who is able to afford these houses. The article gives one example
(doctor married to an engineer, no age given), but I wonder if that case is
typical.

~~~
ec109685
Your mortgage on that 1.2M house is 5k a month (assuming 20% down). And most
of that is tax deducatable. How did you determine 1.2M is the most you can
afford?

~~~
georgeburdell
Our jobs are high stress, evidenced by the median tenure at our jobs being
about 3 years. The people that leave are not job hopping, they're having
existential crises and changing career paths. Basically, we don't want to risk
being shackled to our jobs to pay the mortgage.

~~~
dpark
Then, honestly, why are you looking to buy? Why do you have a budget of 1.2MM
if you don't want to be shackled to your house? If you legitimately don't know
what you're going to be doing in 3 years, buying an expensive house is a
terrible idea.

~~~
georgeburdell
We don't want to be shackled to a house we can only afford if we make at least
our current salaries. A $1.2 million dollar house would not be such a house,
as even if we made only $200k we could likely afford it. We are planning to
live in the Bay Area long term for personal reasons, so buying something makes
sense.

------
dbroockman
Fun fact: in Tokyo prices are 3x lower than in the bay area, in large part
because new housing is legally much easier to build.

If you want to make the bay area more affordable, check out the great work
these folks are doing to legalize building new housing:
[http://www.sfyimby.org](http://www.sfyimby.org).

~~~
flukus
Isn't the Japanese population declining?

~~~
drawnwren
Yes, but the Tokyo population is increasing. [1]

1 -
[http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...](http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.htm)

------
aresant
Two things are powering this insanity.

1 - low interest rates and speciality jumbo programs to lock in high earners
are providing balloon capital. When this pops people won't lose houses because
they have fixed rates, but they will be equity poor or underwater as prices
will correct at least 20% with interest rates rising.

2 - cash investors chasing yield and security. The "cash" offers clogging
every market are disproportionally inbound from foreign nationals and now even
starting to be private placement. Blackstone and other huge PE firms now
consider "single family" to be a category akin to multi-family and are placing
billions to buy and rent homes for yield. All this blows up when interest
rates normalize - eg investors would rather own treasuries / CDs / etc at 5%
vs homes at 5%.

Sam Zell - an infamous CRE investor nw $5b - has recently said he believes
there is a material value of 10-15% a year of holding CASH - eg that the
market is just about ready for a major correction and I agree
wholeheartedly(1)

(1)
[http://www.horizonkinetics.com/sm_cash_as_liability_zell.asp](http://www.horizonkinetics.com/sm_cash_as_liability_zell.asp)

PS - Some further evidence around interest rates driving home prices from this
bloomberg article last year outlining the 0% down and "equity as collateral"
from bay area landers -=>
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/zero-
down...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/zero-down-
on-a-2-million-house-is-no-problem-in-silicon-valley)

~~~
bbcbasic
Whats the rental yield on a SF property?

Here in Sydney you are lucky to get gross 4% on an apartment, 3% on a house.

It kind of implies that there isn't "too many people" because if so the rents
would shoot up too.

------
blinkingled
I wonder what the thought process of people buying $1MM+ houses in SV really
is. I mean how much more are the prices going to go, so that's clearly not an
investment. Even if the only job you could get was in SV, required you to stay
close by _and_ paid enough, you are still paying a big chunk of it towards
housing! Oh and you're going to live in a smaller house too!

It makes little financial sense. You'd be much better off earning less in the
southeast or midwest and living big. Also wonder what the sweet spot is wrt
city/jobs/salary/savings/housing.

~~~
froindt
> I wonder what the thought process of people buying $1MM+ houses in SV really
> is.

I think at that order of magnitude, it you would have to consider it a true
investment, and you should be really bummed if you're holding on to it when
the prices drop. I would be hesitant to question how much more the prices can
go up. People say the same thing with the stock market all the time, but the
long term trend remains up.

I'm from the Midwest, so I'm not exactly up on everything in California, but
from a number of articles I've read I understand that San Francisco is really
worried about maintaining their skyline. Because of this they don't want to
develop anything really tall.

Venture capital firms are mostly in the same area (San Jose?), and the further
out your startup is from there, the less likely they are to consider you. I'm
guessing it's a waiting game for a big tech bust leading to a housing bust of
some sort.

I'll take my $830/month rent for a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom (cable and internet
included) in Iowa for the time being.

~~~
aaronbwebber
It's not so much the skyline in SF, it's that somehow "not building anything"
has become a sort of "progressive" litmus test - if you are in favor of making
any changes that would result in more housing being developed, you are a
neocon shill for developers who wants to "Manhattan-ize" all of our
neighborhoods, and if you want to continue preventing any substantial amount
of housing from being built, you are a true progressive defending the poor and
downtrodden. And everyone in the Bay Area wants to be a progressive, so you
end up with this weird groupthink where because "not letting developers make
profits" is progressive and everyone identifies as progressive there's this
incredible opposition to making the policy changes that would result in more
housing getting built.

It's really weird and makes no sense to me, especially since the people who
get really fucked by this are people working in services who end up commuting
from places where housing is cheap like Tracy all the way to San Jose where
all the jobs are, who are exactly the kind of people you would expect
"progressives" to be doing anything to help.

Also, San Francisco (and the Peninsula) really don't need to develop anything
really tall, they just need to develop _a lot_ more 3-8 story buildings,
particularly in areas that are currently single-family homes. Nearly all of
the Peninsula and most of San Francisco are currently single-family homes on
~1/4 acre lots, i.e. very suburban character.

~~~
Tempest1981
It's happening in Menlo Park and Mountain View.

BTW, I see mostly 6000-7000 sq ft lots, which is 1/6 or 1/7 of an acre. But
how do you replace those with 3-8 story buildings? Those people have lived
there for 20-30 years. Do you declare a housing crisis and evict them?

~~~
sjg007
You zone for multifamily which will raise the value even more. Then a
developer will buy it and put up condos.

~~~
Tempest1981
Are there examples of where this was done? I would love to know how fast it
occurs, and see a graph of adoption/change over time.

I would imagine 5-10% of people would sell (to the developer) immediately. But
those lots probably wouldn't be adjacent. Maybe after 3-5 years, enough
adjacent lots could be found to make it appealing to a developer. (The
developer wants economy of scale, and economy of multiple units sharing common
space.) Where is the tipping point?

If the developer offered to buy homes at 20% over market rate, I wonder how
the graph would change, vs. market rate.

But the developer needs to start buying immediately, yet can't recoup their
investment for several years. They may not like that.

------
losteric
I've wondered why SV companies don't lobby hard for pro-density policies.

Wouldn't they benefit from lower salaries (due to lower rent/costs of living)
and higher productivity/lower turnover due to shorter commutes?

------
shalmanese
Because consumers are primarily used to buying consumables, it results in them
not having an intuitive sense when it comes to investments. Buying a house is
essentially mostly an asset allocation problem, not a purchasing problem.

Think of it this way, would you rather buy 1 house in Palo Alto or 5 houses in
Des Moine? What would 5 houses in Des Moine get you? Well, you could rent the
other 4 houses out and get some sort of rental income but you get a higher
salary working in Palo Alto, both are income streams.

After X number of years, your 5 houses in Des Moine will be worth some amount
and your 1 house in Palo Alto will be worth a different amount. Your houses in
Des Moine are probably $600,000 worth of brick and concrete which are
guaranteed to depreciate over time and $400,000 worth of land which may
appreciate. Your Palo Alto home is like, $200,000 of brick and concrete and
$800,000 worth of land so much more likely the growth in land will make up for
the depreciation in house. Plus, in Palo Alto, you can be a part of the NIMBY
coalition that defends against any law that threatens the value of your house
while encouraging office space to be built that increases it's value.

You can apply the same calculus to say, buying a $200K Des Moine house and
$800K of index funds or renting in Palo Alto and buying $1000K of index funds
or any other asset allocation mix you like.

At the end of the day, even though they look like big scary numbers, the
relative impacts are much tinier because you're just shifting assets between
different classes. Most asset classes grow at about the same risk adjusted
rate because the market is efficient (excepting brick and concrete which is
guaranteed to depreciate as a consumable).

Of course, this is assuming every person has essentially access to infinite
amounts of credit providing they can put up the collateral to back it up. Once
you get into the nitty gritty of who can and cannot gain access to credit,
then issues of privilege also get involved.

------
bankim
I understand not everyone works in tech but it's not unusual for Bay Area
couples to make $300k-$400k per year 6-8 years out of college working in tech.

Consider an example of new grad with CS major working in major software
company. Currently new grads start at $120k total package (base + RSU/stock +
bonus). After maxing out 401k, taxes, rent(with roomates), car payments etc.,
one can save $35k-$40k per year. So for a couple having worked for 5 years
each could save $35k * 5 * 2 = $350k in total. Use $250k to make downpayment
to buy $1.25M home making most of mortgage interest deduction. That's how
myself and most of my Indian tech friends in Bay Area bought homes. Being
lucky in an IPO also helps. Above calculation assumes no student or credit
card debt.

~~~
bruxis
I'll never understand how this is not unusual. I make decent money and could
offer my portion of the 300-400k total, but every girl I've dated out here is
making < 40k/year.

Is there a TechMeetDoctor dating site I'm missing?

~~~
bankim
It's more like engineer meets engineer. Meetings are arranged by parents,
matrimonial sites or friends.

------
tayo42
What are all the people going to the bay area planning on doing long term? Was
it never a long term place for most people? Just not thinking about it?
Renting and living with roomates forever?

~~~
kylestlb
Some of us have always lived here, and find it hard to move away from
friends/family. I'm in that camp at the moment, but if I ever want to own a
'middle class' house, my partner and I will undoubtedly move (she teaches
preschool and I'm a software engineer). Renting seems like the more 'sane'
option because home loans are front-loaded with interest and non-equity
payments anyways.

~~~
kobeya
You could probably afford something in San Jose.

~~~
kylestlb
Depends on where - we basically live in SJ (Campbell) and the prices are still
near 1M for a decent place. A friend just bought a >1M house in South SJ, far
away from just about everything except Netflix.

Midtown SJ is cheaper, and hopefully on the up-and-up. East SJ is cheap but
sketchy. Downtown is getting nicer but is definitely on the more expensive
side unless you want to live under a freeway.

------
opportune
So is this due to zoning regulations or what?

Seems kind of ironic for the former hippy capital of the world (speaking of
the bay in general here) to be pricing non-millionaires out of the area.

~~~
Inconel
It's a combination of a number of reasons but yes, it is in large part due to
zoning and NIMBYism. SF and the Bay Area as a whole are incredibly expensive
places to build housing. Much of the peninsula is completely hostile to
density, and to an only slightly lesser extent, so is SF. It doesn't help that
through subsidies such as Prop 13 and rent control, a large part of the voting
block is essentially insulated from the horrible policy decisions they
support.

In addition, you shouldn't be so surprised that this is what has become of the
former hippy capital of the world. SF style liberals aren't actually nearly as
progressive as they would like the world to think. Many of those who you might
identify as hippies are simply self entitled white people from middle class
and above childhoods. The real working class of this country didn't have the
ability to move to SF in the 60's to be part of the whole counter culture
movement. It should come as no surprise that those who did aren't too fond of
poor working class people living in "their" city.

~~~
Tempest1981
I have friends who are NIMBYs, so I've come to understand how they feel. I
don't think it helps to label and disparage them.

They feel a bit like the Native Americans felt when white men took over their
land. They were here first, living peacefully. The NIMBYs didn't ask for tech
companies to take over their cities, and try to drive them out.

Some still want to stay, because they grew up here, and all their friends are
here. Others are sick of the congestion we've created, and would like to move
outward to, say, Woodside or Saratoga, but those places are even more
expensive. And yes, property tax would be brutal if they moved. So can't
capture the gains on their homes either. They're stuck.

I wish I could suggest a good alternative to them... are there any?

~~~
Inconel
You're right, perhaps I shouldn't be so disparaging of SF NIMBYs, although
likening their situation to the forced taking of land from Native Americans is
surely overly sympathetic, if not down right insulting.

For the record, I spent part of my childhood in the Bay Area, I graduated from
high school in SF, most of my closest childhood friends were made during my
time in SF/Oakland, some of my best childhood memories were made there, and I
could not reasonably afford to live there today if I were to move back. So, in
many ways I am very sympathetic to the human toll that increased housing costs
result in as they keep me from ever moving back.

With that being said, SF and the Bay Area as a whole have been underdeveloping
housing for decades, this is not a recent trend related solely to tech. I have
a very hard time feeling sorry for a group of voters who vote down any
sensible housing and density initiatives and then years later complain about
increased housing costs. It doesn't take a policy expert to predict what will
happen here. I particularly don't have much sympathy when those same voters
who are incredibly adept at holding back high density development are
perfectly fine greenlighting corporate parks and commercial development. It
seems to me that many Bay Area municipalities, and by extension their voters,
love the added tax revenue that large employers bring in but don't want to
adapt the environment to house said employees. So no, in short I'm not buying
the argument that they didn't ask for the tech companies to take over their
cities. In fact, they wanted exactly this. They also wanted some other
municipality to shoulder the cost of housing those employees. They are now
realizing that they probably can't have it both ways.

With regards to congestion, this is just as much the fault of a population
increase as it is the fault of communities in the Bay Area being unwilling to
make the necessary investments in housing and transit. And of course it's been
long time Bay Area residents who have fought those investments.

>So can't capture the gains on their homes either.

They can't capture those gains right now. I'm sure they'll be more than happy
to capture those gains in the future when they sell or pass on their houses to
their kids. This is what really bothers me about Prop 13.

If CA voters are truly worried about grandma being forced out of her house due
to tax increases, then sure, lets have some mechanism to insure that doesn't
happen. Personally, I think the result of such programs is that you end up
with grandma living alone in a 4 bedroom house on a 7,000 sq ft lot in Palo
Alto, not exactly an efficient use of land. But I get it, people don't want to
downsize later in life.

Maybe instead we could have a system were the property taxes are capped at a
predefined rate while owning the home, as currently happens under Prop 13, but
the difference between the capped taxes and the current taxes are accrued and
held as a lien against the home so when it is sold the back taxes are paid
off. The current system were long time homeowners are subsidized by newer
owners but are allowed to reap the rewards of increased real estate prices
seems terribly unfair.

If we're going to have rent control, I'd also like to see that it's means
tested so we don't have upper income renters holding on to SF property as
pied-à-terres.

Ultimately, the only real long term solutions will be to build far more dense
housing, and the transit to go along with it, or make the Bay Area a less
desirable place to live. If the residents of the Bay Area want to preserve it
as it currently is, that's fine by me, but then they don't get to complain
when they can no longer afford to live there.

>They were here first, living peacefully.

This argument to me basically boils down to "I got mine, so screw everyone
else". Sorry if I'm not too sympathetic to it. If Bay Area residents are so
against other Americans moving to their cities, perhaps they should organize
politically to introduce a Constitutional amendment that forbids "non
natives", good luck defining that, from living there. They could even set up
border checks when entering the cities. Of course, other cities may then
similarly choose to ban Bay Area residents from moving in. I'm going to take a
wild guess and say that Bay Area NIMBYs will suddenly think that this is
horribly unfair.

------
hkmurakami
This has been true in Manhattan for how long?

~~~
__derek__
Comparing Silicon Valley to Manhattan is disingenuous. What's the Queens,
Staten Island, or northern New Jersey for Silicon Valley?

~~~
aliston
South San Francisco, Brisbane, San Mateo, Albany, Pacifica, Daly City, San
Leandro, Castro Valley...

------
NTDF9
I don't know. I personally am more scared of carrying such a huge mortgage on
myself.

A home worth $1M means $200,000 liquid cash + $800,000 in mortgage principal +
$570,000 in interest + $300,000 in taxes...over 30 years.

Will house values keep growing to offset $570,000+$300,000? At what point does
this greater fool theory end?

~~~
sigterm
The house value does not need rise enough to offset the interest + taxes
unless you're buying it and leaving it unoccupied for all this time.

If you need a house to live in, the monthly rent for a 1MM house is likely
going to be over $3k. Over 30 years this will come out to be $1.08M, much more
than the $870k in mortgage interest + taxes for owning the house. On top of
that there's the 20-30% tax discount on the mortgage interest that will make
owning even more favorable.

~~~
NTDF9
>> If you need a house to live in, the monthly rent for a 1MM house is likely
going to be over $3k.Over 30 years this will come out to be $1.08M, much more
than the $870k in mortgage interest + taxes for owning the house

Over 30 years, if house prices go down due to whatever reason, so will rents
(more or less). Homeowners will be underwater and suck up all the downside
risk. Renters will remain free of crushing debt.

The only way homeowners are protected is if the house appreciates enough to
eat up that downside risk before a future catastrophe arrives, right?

------
peteretep
This will end up being what normalises remote working

~~~
milesokeefe
Hopefully, otherwise remote working will increase in popularity at about the
same rate it is currently but people will just continue to leave such high
rent areas.

------
lokedhs
At least you're not in Singapore. Here, 1 million USD won't even get you a
small condo. A house will cost you around 2 million USD,and that would be a
cheap one. In a prime location the price goes up to several times that amount.

------
flukus
This isn't just Silicon Valley, the same is happening in many parts of the
world, like London, Vancouver and Sydney. At least in SV there are still a lot
of people that can afford those inflated prices, the rest of us have to wait
until the bubble pops.

------
shoefly
In our case, we sold TWO houses that we owned outright in another state, and
this was our down payment for our house in silicon valley.

------
homakov
Or four of them in much of the entire world.

------
partycoder
For a downpayment in Silicon Valley you can start a career as landlord in
Latin America.

~~~
flubert
My favorite part is where they are talking about $40k down payment, when you
can buy a house for $40k.

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/309-W-Maple-Ave-Mc-
Cracken...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/309-W-Maple-Ave-Mc-Cracken-
KS-67556/91263818_zpid/)

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/403-W-1st-St-Pratt-
KS-6712...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/403-W-1st-St-Pratt-
KS-67124/91250312_zpid/)

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/603-5th-Ave-Chester-
SD-570...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/603-5th-Ave-Chester-
SD-57016/2095669920_zpid/)

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1109-11th-Corso-
Nebraska-C...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1109-11th-Corso-Nebraska-
City-NE-68410/97890840_zpid/)

~~~
partycoder
And you can buy a foreclosed place for even less.

------
thenewwazoo
Is this news? I could buy a Ferrari before I could buy a house here.

~~~
closeparen
You could lease a Ferrari before you could lease a parking space a Honda Civic
here.

------
sillepl
A couple hundred thousand is right - nobody is buying a home unless they're
dual income couples making at least $100K/year each. That's just it.

And that's why this area is soul sucking and tragic.

------
giancarlostoro
That website screwed up my scrolling on Chrome, works fine with scroll wheel
but the trackpad two-finger scrolling just does weird side scrolling.

~~~
freshyill
Something really weird is going on there. There's something really odd in
Safari too.

