It's also why so many people were interested in SB-50, which would have overridden local zoning controls to allow higher density development around transit stops.
I think the biggest challenge is the transition. The current system is broken, but we typically look at changes in terms of the desired end-state, and when we look at it that way it's clear that the change will be very disruptive to a lot of people who are benefiting from the status quo. Those are the people who turn out and ensure that the changes cannot go through - even if they might agree that the long-term outcome would be better.
Strong Towns has done a good job emphasizing incrementalism in its approach to urban problems, but I'd love to see more of a conversation around this in a legal / regulatory context. Are there ways that we can undo the harm of bad regulations and transition to better ones that aren't so disruptive to the people who have built their lives around the current rules? What would those look like?
I can see two bug problems with this, one practical and one political. The practical one is that estimating benefit is a black art — we really can't trust anyone, partisan or non-partisan, to make accurate predictions of future economic benefits (there's a secondary practical sub-problem, which is that such an estimate would be ripe for capture). The political problem is that we'd end up rewarding those who have been benefiting all these years (e.g. all the homeowners with unrealistically low property taxes for the last four decades).
So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first.
It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty.
* Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far)
* Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort?
* And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.)
When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back.
I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.
Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.
Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale.
It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.
- If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle, but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it.
- If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking "relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more uncertain (where, when, etc)
Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell, particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the _possible_ eminent domain would impact it.
And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another year or two to go.
Hope it all works out for you and yours in the end!
They are offered two options. One is getting an apartment somewhere on the outskirts of the (vast) city, but the size and number of rooms will be the same or better as in the old apartment. The other is getting an apartment nearby in a newly built house, but likely smaller, with an option to upgrade it to a better apartment by paying the difference at a discount rate.
While this is not ideally fair, I like that a choice is offered.
You're basically giving up an 80sqm flat in a small building for a 50sqm flat in a large building. The former is way, way more valuable in most cases.
That said, I suspect they'd pay less than we'd need to get anything comparable. The Seattle market has been insane for years, and I got extremely luck when I bought right after the crash.
I just try to operate on the philosophy that if I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already have it then I should probably sell it. Sounds like this house fits that for you in that you probably wouldn't buy a house with government development looming over it.
If you're not able to get much now its because you wont get much later anyway.
Suppose property owners have been benefiting from the tax shelters for 10 years. That was the payoff. Don't dally around asking what their next hand out should be. They've been riding the gravy train for years. Now the perks need to end. Welcome to a level playing field.
Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your way?
There's also an issue of fairness, in that people made choices based on the deals they were offered under the rules which were active at the time.
0) remove single family zoning in the city of los angeles and remove height restrictions on parcels a 10 min walk to a metro station
1) enact an actual property tax to fund transit
2) 1% sales tax on cars and luxury goods to fund transit
3) watch the egregiously inflated housing prices tumble to rational levels
4) buy property and build elevated rail above
5) enjoy the lack of smog
The people benefiting from the status quo have made hundreds of billions of combined dollars over the past decade alone at the expense of everyone else. They’ve built metaphorical walls to keep everyone else out of their cities except themselves. It’s long past time they were stopped from doing that. Who cares if they don’t like the transition? Everyone else doesn’t like the stranglehold they’ve been living under with the status quo.
Maybe there is some real-estate-specific knowledge I lack that can explain this phenomenon?
You might look at these places and see wasted capital. Why not cash out? Well, what would you do when cash out? Invest the money and try to make a better return than you're currently making.
Yes, these parking lots don't make much money WRT to their value. No body would buy a half acre land today and put a parking lot on it. So why do they exist?
The little money they make is usually more than they can get as a percentage of the value invested in any other safe asset. For example, a parking lot of that size might only make $2K profit per day, but because the taxes are essentially $0, you're generating a return of 4% per year. That might not sound impressive compared to equities, but you have to remember that the land is also increasing in value -- currently at about the same rate as equities.
Further, you have to consider that profits from land sales are taxed as capital gains. The return on equities includes dividends, which are taxed as income, which is taxed at a higher rate.
I'm not as familiar with New York tax code, but it might have similar laws to appease aristocrats. Other than these areas, it's really a pretty recent phenomenon for land to be as expensive as it is and increasing in value at the rate it is. I'm sure a lot of it is just owners unsure of what to do in this strange environment.
Take Texas for example -- until very recently, land was plentiful and very cheap. If you had a poorly utilized piece of land, there wasn't a lot of reason to try to figure out what to do with it.
There's a huge amount of that real estate dark matter around here. It takes some legwork to find such buildings and rent them. And if you fix them up, the landlord might notice and raise the rent.
It's an inefficient market, waiting for disruption. Some startups are trying.
That tells me that taxes are too low. Not necessarily taxes for used property, but vacant/unused property could be taxed more effectively to promote development.
It's terrible in Toronto, you'll see complete sections of the street literally empty since there's so many tax benefits for empty commercial-retail space
If the land is appreciating at 10%/year then it is a no brainer to borrow against it at 4% (pre tax)
This was a point in a presentation about issues in local urban communities I attended a couple years ago. (The dynamic is not great for a community.)
In general the non-use is not very widespread, and partly thanks to 唐樓 architecture there are plenty active small businesses in residential areas (I haven’t seen such abundance while staying in mainland cities). I believe the reason I saw it come up is the existence of active and conscious members of the community who are more invested in its future and sensitive to upcoming issues.
The contract: If you save, invest, and pay off your home mortgage so that you own it free and clear, later in life when you are retired and living on a fixed income no one can come along and confiscate the property that you bought and paid for fair and square.
The contract breech: Property taxes going up so fast that the only possible solution was to sell your home. Now, of course the value of the home was going up, which was what was driving the taxes. But forcing pensioners to sell their homes, disrupting/destroying a life-time of plans and work was never going to be a smooth ride -- who could have thought that it would be?
The government pre-Prop 13 was viewed as kleptocratic by a sizeable portion of the population, with arguably good reason.
So, do you have a better solution that has empathy for pensioners that played by the rules all their lives and have plans to settle into modest enjoyment of their so-called "golden years"? Prop 13 was an attempt to stop perceived thievery, a crude bludgeon, perhaps, but a sufficient number of desperate people saw it as a solution to get it enacted.
> The contract: If you save, invest, and pay off your home mortgage so that you own it free and clear, later in life when you are retired and living on a fixed income no one can come along and confiscate the property that you bought and paid for fair and square.
That doesn't explain why Prop 13 applies to commercial, industrial, and rental properties.
Sob stories about retirees on fixed incomes getting taxed out of their homes was only the propagandistic sales pitch, a clever way to convince a majority of voters to support the referendum.
The wealthy anti-tax activists who promoted prop 13 didn’t actually care about unwealthy elderly people per se. If such people had been the main focus, it would have been straightforward to come up with a much less dramatic remedy.
What it needed is a way for people whose homes had only gone up a small amount from getting budget busting increments. Once your home has doubled in value, there are other financial mechanisms to solve that problem and you can afford to pay the increase.
If you are a retiree who has worked hard the paper value of your home if you were forced to sell is not a real gain.
A better solution would be offering up a property lien instead of taxes. The govt collects when the property is eventually sold. People get to stay in their home and property taxes remain fair.
1) It doesn't solve the immediate revenue problems of the taxing authority
2) It doesn't provide any more incentive to move than the current situation in California
3) It exposes taxing authorities to risk in a housing market downturn where people may start surrendering their property rather than sell because selling would net them little money, or even cost them money.
It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo.
Without putting more thought into it, I don't know. I don't see how this changes the revenue picture.
> reduces the lost taxes to a far smaller number of units (every corporation and person vs some older people)
That is independent of the tax lien idea.
> It also allows older people to move without 'losing' a prop 13 tax benefit, since they can retain more value of the large house they don't need anymore with a smaller lower maintenance condo.
This I can see. I know Florida had issues with people who wanted to downsize but couldn't afford to because of the tax jump from selling their homesteaded property.
That said, I'm not sure this alone would open up enough inventory to actually reduce prices.
The government gets all of the deferred taxes on the next sale. That’s immensely better than the current scenario where they don’t get any reasonable amount.
And the deferred revenue can be significant. A friend bought a house where the owner was paying $600 per year when the rate for the same home should have been $11,000 per year.
Usually although, you have provide some sort of incentive to people adopt something, and no taxes vs some small amount taxes is attractive to a voting block. And democracy is getting enough voting blocks to get you over the pass rate.
Also since government works over large numbers and is very long term, they can do actuarial calculations to see when revenue would kick in and issue fairly reliable bonds based on it.
What do you mean by "is not a real gain"?
Also - a financial instrument based on the value of collateral can easily go south if the value of the collateral falls.
There is no guarantee that home values will remain stable nor that whatever assets you put the loan into will perform adequately too.
Given that retirees typically don’t have the ability to correct for investments gone wrong out of future earnings, your recommendations would be foolhardy for most.
Simply buying a house to live in is fine.
The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
That's not how a reverse mortgage works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage
> The only reason we are having this discussion is that the people complaining about prop 13 want a mechanism to force older people out of their homes so they can take have them instead.
That's just not true. We want baby boomers to pay their fair share of taxes and not squirrel away their wealth for their heirs at our expense. In addition, because of Prop 13 (and similar programs else where) mean OTHER tax payers are paying a higher rate than they need to in order to cover the short fall.
Also, what about all of the other people lives you’d destroy? I live in Oakland in a neighborhood where most homes are either rented, or owned by families that are neither boomers, nor high income tech employees.
Any honest discussion about this has to admit that these are would be hardest hit and their communities decimated so that beneficiaries of the tech boom can buy them out.
You are clearly very emotional about this topic but it's NOT about "techbros" "stealing" property from "poor" retirees on a fixed income.
It’s clear that you don’t care about the consequences to anyone who owns a home other than the ‘Boomers’ who you want to make pay.
I didn’t say ‘tech bros’. But I did mention tech. I stand by that but I agree that it is narrow - It’s a stand in for anyone who is young and in a position to have high future earnings.
It's clear that you are so emotional about this issue that you can't help but personally attack those who disagree with you. Let's leave it here.
You could have actually answered my point about the people who were adversely affected instead doing that.
Instead you chose the intellectually dishonest route.
Let’s leave it there instead shall we?
I don’t like taxes being used to take away property from people just because you want what they have.
This is just a variant of "the left is just jealous of rich people" argument. That's not an argument and I'm not jealous, I'm actually quite rich by most standards, I just don't think it's earned or justified, especially in a country with a vivid history of genocide.
The State of California offers another solution. It's called Property Tax Postponement: https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html
"The State Controller’s Property Tax Postponement Program allows homeowners who are seniors, are blind, or have a disability to defer current-year property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria including 40 percent equity in the home and an annual household income of $35,500 or less."
The taxes are deferred until a change of control, like due to a sale or transfer to next of kin. Many or most high-cost-of-living jurisdictions have similar programs.
It's a totally different problem from prop 13.
It's hard for me to have much sympathy for the dream of keeping your home forever when the great majority of people I know have basically no hope of ever owning a home in the area.
Just so you're aware, the phrase "sent to a quiet farm upstate" is a euphemism for "killed", usually applied to animals like family pets.
(Serious question - how do you justify sending retirees away from their homes, rather than simply working somewhere else?)
My impression, as a person under 60, is that the older land-owning generation largely had things much, much easier, and have been blissfully unaware of the changes society has undergone. Or else perfectly aware, but unwilling to recognize their debts to society and circumstance and pay it forward.
Those low property taxes translate directly into booming tuition, as the state funding for higher education has been systematically gutted. The higher tuitions, in turn, imply massive student debt. Simply get a summer job, rite?
As for me? I work where it makes most sense for me to work. Not-working can happen anywhere.
So for retirees, my advice is this: Sell the house, take the millions of dollars in windfall, and go to Bali or Florida or something already. I'm sorry if you have to make new friends; please consider this outcome the next time you settle for a societal structure without robust community. But in getting out, you'll reduce the demand pressure slightly, improve the depressed tax base, and have enough money for a long, long vacation.
In California they are linked, in that property tax rollback and the procedural impediments to raising other taxes at either state or local levels were part of the same initiative constitutional amendment.
What makes a particular property owner into a ‘squatter’?
Prop 13 is a blunt instrument that rewards speculators more than it protects homeowners. What would be a much better system is some sort of forbearance, that the owner does not have to pay the full property tax until the property is sold, and then the back taxes are paid from the profits.
Immortal entities like corporations should not have Prop 13 protection.
Unless you take seriously the idea that most homeowners in California are squatters and NIMBYs.
More importantly who do you think should decide what the ‘potential’ is for what you own?
It’s not meaningful to say something is a bad strategy if you can’t articulate an alternative.
Financial instruments that prevent that already exist. If your home is worth millions of dollars it's not that hard to find a way to pay the property tax. "Having more money" is rarely a real problem.
> a sufficient number of desperate people saw it as a solution to get it enacted.
No, people who's material interests are in direct conflict with a functional society pushed for it. It passed through a combination of "think of the elders" concern-trolling and libertarian dark money.
That’s not a great one either.
Also, nothing is "banned" by Prop 13.
I am sure there are reasonable solutions other than: "Do nothing and let the country rot."
It also seems nice to not tax small businesses out of existence.
On the other hand, it would be nice to not have as many closed storefronts and vacant lots in prime locations.
Note well: I said "obvious", not "easy" or even "politically possible". But I think it's useful to note that, in important ways, California is doing this to itself.
When it's put in an ideologically biased way that ignores practical solutions to paying taxes on an increasing property value, it implies another ideologically biased solution that favours the material interests of the rich...
I'm arguing against hiding your ideological motive (lower taxes) under the guise of 'logical deduction' or 'obviousness'.
Note that AnimalMuppet was also downvoted for the same reasons.
See this thread:
Lots of right-wing arguments upvoted with almost no evidence:
> [The city] grant[s] de facto immunity to homeless people committing petty crime, stop all police enforcement of drug laws, and shame everyone who dares to complain.
This isn't an argument, and has no sources other than a vague 'feeling' by the poster. It even includes a bit of a cut at the left ("shame anyone who dares to complain").
I'm not really complaining about that individual comment, but it's also upvoted and contains no argument or substantive discussion. Similar comments I've made are always deeply downvoted.
This has a chilling effect on discourse from leftists, where it feels like it's not worthwhile to write a substantive comment only to have it downvoted with nothing other than pithy right-libertarian ideological comments in return.
So I haven't really bothered with this account, hence spewing ideology.
> So I haven't really bothered with this account, hence spewing ideology.
You just told us to ignore anything you say.
We regularly hear about older people getting taxed out of their homes (though there are programs to somewhat hold their taxes constant).
In austin we are starting to have an affordability crisis, whereas cities like houston are doing much better.
The taxation is the same, what is different is the restrictive zoning in austin. In austin permitting can take 6-9 months and single family zoning restricts what can be built. The city council tried to revise zoning and failed due to NIMBYs, but they are trying again this year.
This is a reminder that the more competing systems of laws we have the better. Every program implemented at the federal level only gives us one chance to get it right. The state level gives us 50 chances and the local level gives us thousands of chances.
>The taxation is the same, what is different is the restrictive zoning in austin. In austin permitting can take 6-9 months and single family zoning restricts what can be built. The city council tried to revise zoning and failed due to NIMBYs, but they are trying again this year.
Austin's problems are straight out of a California textbook on what not to do.
This mostly shift the tax burden to new home buyers and renters.
You get odd effects like in 2009, when property values dramatically fell due to the market bubble bursting, taxes actually went up because the assessed values were so much lower then the just market value.
In 2016, a 6.9 million dollar house was only taxed at 2.8 million. Source https://www.jacksonville.com/photogallery/LK/20170125/PHOTOG...
I like Austin, and would love to live there, but I'm timid about moving there in the short term because the transit, roadway, and housing situations don't seem very sustainable with all of this growth thrown on top.
FWIW, at least per numbers from proximityone.com (and I'm not certain how well-sourced the data is...) the Austin MSA is significantly less dense than Houston's:
> Geography. The total land area of the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX MSA is 8,265.8 SqMi with water area of 1,178.1 SqMi. The metro ranked 21st among all metros based on total land area. With 2017 population density of 833.9, the metro ranked 20th among all metros (based on land area). http://proximityone.com/cbsa/1/cbsa26420.htm
> Geography. The total land area of the Austin-Round Rock, TX MSA is 4,221.7 SqMi with water area of 58.4 SqMi. The metro ranked 96th among all metros based on total land area. With 2017 population density of 501.2, the metro ranked 49th among all metros (based on land area). http://proximityone.com/cbsa/1/cbsa12420.htm
For something simple that can stand on its own, that was what we saw with gay marriage and, I personally believe, what we will see with cannabis legalization.
For something as complex and interconnected as property taxes, I don't think it will be that easy to convert it to federal, so state spread is what we can hope for in the near future. An example of a similar issue is income taxing, where we ended up with a two-tiered solution: one federal (same for every state) + one state (differs for each state, with some having none at all).
One of my friends took that gamble, in another decade it is going to pay of handsomely.
Case in point: it was a tough push to get AB 2923 through the CA legislature. It allowed BART to build dense housing on their own parking lots. Thankfully common sense prevailed. The bill was approved and BART is now using their power to plan for more transit oriented development.
Who votes them out and with what arguments?
The sleepy suburb gets the commercial revenue from having a major tech firm, and then most of the workers leave and the residentialists get to keep the revenue for their city services.
The service workers who had to drive until they qualified, they go home to more far-flung suburbs with financial problems and poor services. This is segregation by deliberate policy.
But it’s starting to fall apart. When there were still nearby orchards to pave to put up parking lots, the new homes were cheaper than they are today, and the rich suburb could still hire workers to provide the services. Now that there’s not enough room for both new single-family homes and parking lots, and they are refusing to allow sufficient multi-family housing, the housing supply is not keeping up with demand and the service workers are increasingly refusing to take the jobs. This is manifesting as chronic short-handedness in the schools, in the police and fire departments, in the transit agencies. By greedily holding onto commercial revenues, these suburbs are destroying their own ability to provide services.
1) The building code isn't good enough. I should not be able to hear my neighbors, let alone the train, at all when things are closed. I should also have fresh air that doesn't smell like laundry, perfumes, the garbage chute, or whatever cooking experiments are happening in other apartments.
2) Outside of cities cars are still needed; more so in America. That rail network needs to connect to multiple potential 'apartments for my car'. Those are also the places that would be a dropoff / interface for external to the city users to drive to and then take transit infrastructure the rest of the way in.
My wife and I looked at a house once in Padova, where we lived, that was right next to the train tracks. You couldn't help but feel the trains go by, let alone hearing them. It was not for us, but it was super cheap, and might have been an option for someone without a lot of other good options - or a great option for someone hearing impaired who didn't care too much.
Edited because of a misclick.
Isn't that the point the writer is making? That they should be bustling hives of residential, retail and commercial activity.
I know the Main-Bergen line pretty much fits that description, though. Hell, there's one "station" that is just a half-ass strip of asphalt that passes for a parking lot.
But there are a lot of people who can ride a bike or scooter, or who can stand to walk 10 mins. You won't get sweaty walking 10 minutes in LA in the morning; tomorrow it will be 69* at 9am in ktown. Who cares if you sweat a bit after work on your way home? Getting into a 115* car interior before the AC kicks in will make you sweat as well.
It's a meme in some movies - someone is staying in a run-down apartment or hotel near railway tracks and train will go by at night causing dust to shake loose from the ceiling.
Caltrain stations are subject to these kinds of noise and vibration - during the day the baby bullets bypass stations at 60 mph, and at night endlessly long freight trains barrel past.
>> Caltrain stations are subject to these kinds of noise
These trains mean someone has to wear earplugs to get a good night's sleep. No wonder the rich dont want to live near it.
New York City had about the same population in 1950 and 2000. Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland have all shrunk. New York was once the largest city in the world; now it's in 9th place. Nationwide, there's no great need to build.
Remember the 2008 recession in the Bay Area? FOR SALE signs everywhere? No traffic jams? It's coming again, probably within the next year.
The Midwest has been losing people for a long time Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio are some of the worst. The Dakota’s are only gaining due to fracking booms.
New York City expanded outside its historic area and into Jersey and any surrounding areas cheap enough to build on.
Countries like India, Nigeria, etc won't crest their growth for decades and in that time they will add another 1-2 billion people to the planet. Even after the cresting going below replacement will take another generation or two. So for at least the next hundred years there will be plenty of people in the world to import if you want to keep your population pyramid from changing.
That is all aside the fact that its well established now that demographics are shifting even in limited population growth scenarios. Urban migration continues because the availability of productive labor anywhere except at the highest concentrations of human capital continue to diminish. There is no more gold rush of raw resources to establish whole states over and all the industry we have for resource extraction is getting automated away.
In the next hundred years we should see the gradual centralization of human populations for purposes of survival. And as the available job pool shrinks, until the jump is made to a UBI / socialist / post-scarcity model in the future the increasing pressure basic necessities have on people will keep forcing the cost of labor to stay stagnant as it has been for 40 years and thus inflation will pressure people into living more efficiently.
Right now having a car and commuting 4 hours a day from a 3000 square foot house with a yard you need to maintain, where in part you need to pay for all the roads you traverse, all the infrastructure wired to your house, the services required (fire, medical, police) is insanely expensive and insanely inefficient compared to people living in condos, apartments, etc with public transit in a proper metro. Automation will keep gnawing away at median disposable income until the median is forced to forgo luxuries like split housing.
Those transitions and shifts will require legislative support, which given the fact those shifts will be made because of outdated state policy probably doesn't bode well for it being a smooth migration.
(And apparently the Menlo Park station was built in 1867, making it one of the oldest passenger rail stations in California!)
Because of the topology of the Bay we would basically have to build a levee all the way around it. IANACivil Engineer, but that seems like a big deal.
All I'm saying is that if you're looking to buy or build in the Bay Area do your homework.
A couple of years ago I was looking at buying a condo on the water in Redwood City and it dawned on me that, by the time I paid off the mortgage, it would be underwater both literally and figuratively. ( https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-underwater-m... )
It doesn't make sense to build up new urban sites along CalTrain if we don't also deal with the effects of climate change, eh?