Showing posts with label affordable housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affordable housing. Show all posts

Friday, June 24, 2016

California's skyrocketing housing costs, taxes prompt exodus of residents



This article is not much of a surprise to me. Although as a Realtor I have benefited from the hot housing market, which is the result of the hot job market, it is starting to have negative consequences for the Silicon Valley and California. Many residents had enough and want out. Just recently I signed a listing agreement with seller clients of mine who want to sell their San Jose home so they can move to Oregon. How long will this bleeding of residents from California will continue? What can be done about it? No one has a clear answer.


Living in San Jose, Kathleen Eaton seemingly had it all: a well-paying job, a home in a gated community, even the Bay Area's temperate weather.

But enduring a daily grind that made her feel like a "gerbil on a wheel," Eaton reached her limit.

Faced with the exorbitant rising costs of Bay Area living, Priya Govindarajan and Ajay Patel pack up their apartment in San Francisco, Calif., ThursdaySkyrocketing costs for housing, food and gasoline, along with the area's insufferable gridlock, prompted the four-decade Bay Area resident to seek greener pastures -- 2,000 miles away in Ohio.

"It was a struggle in California," Eaton said. "It was a very difficult place to live. ... It's a vicious circle."

Eaton is far from alone.

A growing number of Bay Area residents -- besieged by home prices, worsening traffic, high taxes and a generally more expensive cost of living -- believe life would be better just about anywhere else but here.

During the 12 months ending June 30, the number of people leaving California for another state exceeded by 61,100 the number who moved here from elsewhere in the U.S., according to state Finance Department statistics. The so-called "net outward migration" was the largest since 2011, when 63,300 more people fled California than entered.

"The main factors are housing costs in many parts of the state, including coastal regions of California such as the Bay Area," said Dan Hamilton, director of economics with the Economic Forecasting Center at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks.

"California has seen negative outward migration to other states for 22 of the last 25 years."

A recent poll revealed that an unsettling sense of yearning has descended on people in the Bay Area: About one-third of those surveyed by the Bay Area Council say they would like to exit the nine-county region sometime soon.

"They are tired of the expense of living here. They are tired of the state of California and the endless taxes here," said Scott McElfresh, a certified moving consultant. "People are getting soaked every time they turn around."

The area's sizzling job market and robust economy have created a domino effect: income spikes for highly trained workers, more people packing the area's roads, red-hot demand for housing.

What's more, the technology boom has unleashed a hiring spree that has intensified the desire for homes anywhere near the job hubs of Santa Clara County, the East Bay and San Francisco. The South Bay job market has hit an all-time high after a 5,800-position surge in May, fueling an overall gain of 3,400 jobs for the Bay Area, according to a state labor report released Friday.

The region's soaring housing prices are a key factor driving dissatisfied residents toward the exit door. Several people who have departed, or soon will leave, say they potentially could have hundreds of thousands of dollars left over even after buying a house in their new locations.

"They're taking advantage of the housing bubble right now," McElfresh said. "The majority of the people we are seeing are moving to states that don't have state income taxes."

Thomas Norman, of San Francisco, said he and his wife, Patricia, are seriously considering leaving the Bay Area. They have actively scouted for houses in the Rocky Mountains region, including a trip to Colorado to look for prospective homes.

"The inconvenience of the Bay Area is a major factor," said Thomas Norman, a lifelong Bay Area resident burdened by a two-hour round-trip commute to an East Bay optometry practice. "The traffic is very bad. It is becoming more congested with all the housing that is being added here."

Eaton, who left the South Bay to relocate near Dayton, Ohio, cited the high cost of living as a major factor driving her decision. The struggle to make ends meet became too much.

"You can't get ahead," Eaton said. "It's more than the cost of living; it's the high taxes."

Eaton and her sister had a $724,000 house in The Villages in South San Jose that they sold before moving to Ohio. Their mortgage payments were $2,200 a month, plus $1,000 for association fees in the gated community. They were able to pay $300,000 in cash for their new home in Ohio.

Priya Govindarajan, a San Francisco resident, is planning to leave the Bay Area at the end of June and head with her husband, Ajay Patel, to North Carolina.

Govindarajan, who works in the consumer packaged goods industry, and her husband, who is in the medical profession, determined that their wages aren't going far enough to cover their living expenses.

Living in UC San Francisco housing, the couple pays $2,100 a month in rent. And they have to cough up $1,900 a month for child care.

"My husband's salary would be in the six figures, but six figures is not enough to cover the rent, day care (and) food prices," Govindarajan said. "It all starts to add up."

Govindarajan said she figures they can put down 20 percent on a nice house in North Carolina and have a monthly payment of $1,800 -- which would include the mortgage, property taxes and insurance.

"I get why people want to live in the Bay Area, I really do," Govindarajan said. "But it is so difficult to live here, especially for people coming here for the first time."

Some experts believe the boom in the Bay Area has exacerbated the problem of income inequality and the resentment that can accompany that economic reality.

"There is a declining middle class in the Bay Area," said Christopher Hoene, executive director of the California Budget & Policy Center, a research group that recently completed a study about income inequality in Silicon Valley. "Widening income inequality can create polarization socially and economically."

In 1989, the middle class accounted for 56 percent of all households in Silicon Valley, but by 2013, that share had slipped to 45.7 percent, the study found.

"The region's middle class has shrunk, while the numbers of lower-income and higher-income households has grown," the report stated. Silicon Valley, for the purposes of the study, consists of Santa Clara County, San Mateo County and San Francisco.

Lower-income residents accounted for 30.3 percent of Silicon Valley's households in 1989, and that number grew to 34.8 percent in 2013. Upper-income residents had 13.7 percent of the share of households in 1989, and that figure swelled to 19.5 percent in 2013, the study found.

"A lot of middle-class jobs have vaporized," said Russell Hancock, president of San Jose-based Joint Venture Silicon Valley. "The support positions, the assembly line positions, the jobs that paid the middle class -- a lot of those have gone away."

A big chunk of the jobs that are being created in the Bay Area are in the high-tech sector, which requires specialized skill sets to fill them. When jobs that would cater to the middle class wane, that can force people to relocate -- in many cases, out of the Bay Area entirely.

"This summer, I have booked more business than in any of the other 27 years that I've been working," said McElfresh, the moving consultant. "People are packing up and leaving."

Eaton, while happy to have escaped the high cost of living and traffic, recently found herself longing for one Bay Area staple -- its mild weather.

"There's a huge thunderstorm overhead," Eaton said while talking to a reporter. "Got to get used to that, I guess."

Source: Mercury News, George Avalos
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_30037774/greener-pastures-beckon-some-beleaguered-residents

Thursday, March 31, 2016

San Jose council approves 'grace period' for affordable housing law

With the sky high rents in this valley, some cities, such as San Jose, have pushed to enact affordable housing laws. These laws haven't sat well with landlords and developers, but for the time being, San Jose put their local ordinance on hold until they figure out how to enact the said law.

San Jose is severely behind its goal to build 20,849 affordable housing units by 2022. (Dan Honda/Bay Area News Group)

SAN JOSE -- With the city falling dramatically behind its goal to build nearly 2,400 homes for the poor each year until 2022, San Jose's landmark law that requires some developers to reserve units for affordable housing is ready to be enacted -- after surviving more than two years of legal challenges.

But elected leaders Tuesday approved a "grace period" for housing projects approved before June 30 to allow developers and city staff time to plan for the changes, which were on hold while the merits of the law were debated in court. The City Council voted 10-1 to implement the plan at a council meeting Tuesday. Councilman Manh Nguyen opposed.

"With the crisis we face in our housing markets, I only regret that it required a Supreme Court ruling to uphold the ordinance," Mayor Sam Liccardo, who championed the policy against opposition from his loyalists in the building community, wrote in a memo Monday. Liccardo said the city could have had the benefit of several years of the new law.

Developers who have projects approved before June 30 must still apply for an exemption and turn in a compliance plan, said Jacky Morales-Ferrand, the city's housing director.

The city's policy, which was adopted in 2010 and paved the way for dozens of other cities to craft similar legislation, requires developers of market-rate, for-sale developments of 20 or more units to set aside 15 percent of the units for moderate-income people. It does not apply to rental units and mostly targets for-sale units such as condos, single-family homes and townhouses.

Housing is considered "affordable" when a resident isn't paying more than 30 percent of his or her income for housing. In San Jose, "moderate-income housing," which is what the policy seeks to create, targets individuals who earn $74,000 to $89,000 a year -- higher in larger households. Although the law went into effect in January 2013, it was blocked by a legal challenge from the California Building Industry Association. The Santa Clara County Superior Court issued an injunction, which was later overturned by the 6th District Court of Appeal.

The building industry appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court. The high court in June unanimously issued a decision in favor of the city. The building group in September filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the California Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, but it declined to hear that petition.

The new policy will begin just as San Jose struggles to build affordable housing amid soaring rents and a staggering housing shortage. The city from 2007 to 2013 built only 2,956 affordable units -- a mere 15 percent of its 19,271-unit goal, Morales-Ferrand said.

San Jose's new goal is to build 20,849 affordable housing units by 2022, and it's already severely behind. The city in the past two years began construction on 576 affordable units. It needs to build roughly 2,400 units annually to meet that goal.

"There is a significant shortage of housing affordable to low and moderate income households, which will only increase as the finite number of residentially zoned lots within the city are purchased and developed for market rate residential developments," Morales-Ferrand wrote in a staff report.

Developers who do not want to comply with the new law have a few other options, including paying an "in-lieu" fee or building affordable housing somewhere else in the city.

Requiring developers to put aside price-restricted units isn't a new idea in San Jose. The city in 1988 adopted a similar policy, but it applied only to Redevelopment Agency properties. The new law applies citywide except Communications Hill and replaces the old policy.

To address the housing shortage of apartments, the city charges developers $17 per square foot to help build new affordable apartments. That program excludes downtown residential projects for five years.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Ramona Giwargis
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29699322/san-jose-council-mull-grace-period-affordable-housing

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court leaves San Jose housing law in place


The City of San Jose has a requirement in which builders of new construction have to allocated 15% of their units for below market rates - for low income buyers. If the builder doesn't want to allocate some of their units for low income buyers, then the builder has a fee, which works out to be over $100K. Naturally builders/developers are upset about this and took the issue to the California Supreme Court which upheld San Jose's law, so then it went to the US Supreme Court but they didn't want to hear the case.

This issue is kind of a big deal. It may affect the future of the real estate market here in numerous ways that only the time will tell. Great article below from the San Jose Mercury news.



The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a legal challenge to a San Jose affordable housing law, leaving intact the city's effort to address the exploding cost of housing in Silicon Valley.

The justices declined to hear the building industry's appeal of a ruling last year by the California Supreme Court upholding San Jose's law. In a brief opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas observed that the law on the issue remains "unsettled" and needs Supreme Court guidance, but agreed with the vote to reject the appeal because the San Jose case had technical legal problems that may prevent reaching the core questions.

In its appeal, the building industry argued that San Jose's law and others like it across California violate federal constitutional protections against the "taking" of private property. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative Sacramento group representing the industry, pressed the fight to the nation's high court.

"The rights of all property owners were dealt a blow today, as San Jose's punitive treatment of homebuilders was allowed to stand," said foundation attorney Brian Hodges. "It is disappointing that the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review the California Supreme Court's decision to uphold San Jose's inclusionary building mandates."

San Jose city officials welcomed the conclusion of the legal fight.

"(The) Supreme Court ruling could not have come any sooner for the thousands of families in our community who are struggling to keep up with skyrocketing rents, and we look forward to implementing this policy as quickly as possible," San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling in June written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, determined that San Jose's affordable housing program is within the law, observing: "These problems have become more and more severe and have reached what may be described as epic proportions in many of the state's localities."

The case involved a legal challenge to a San Jose law that would require housing developers to include affordable, below-market priced units for low-income buyers on any new projects within the city. The building industry sued to block enforcement of the so-called "inclusionary housing" law several years ago.

The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties, which backed San Jose in the case, estimate about 170 local governments have put versions of the law in place to deal with the state's shortage of affordable housing, considered an acute problem in Silicon Valley and around the Bay Area.

The state building industry, backed by groups such as the California Association of Realtors, considers such legislation a strong-arm tactic that in the long run will drive up already exorbitant housing prices. They maintain such laws will force developers to simply pass along the cost of subsidizing below-market units to new homebuyers.

In particular, the industry argues the law is an unconstitutional "taking" of property and that San Jose has not established a connection between the building of new housing and the affordable housing problem. Cities, they argue, make that case in forcing developers to pay fees to cover the impact of new housing developments on things such as local schools and parks, but haven't done so for affordable housing.

San Jose's law would require developers to offer 15 percent of units in new projects of 20 or more units at below-market rates. Developers could opt out of building affordable units by paying a fee, which the housing industry estimates could run about $122,000 per house.

Housing advocates warned of dire consequences if the Supreme Court invalidated San Jose's affordable housing regulation. California has been considered a model for such laws, designed not only to provide more low-income housing but also to get it built in a larger cross-section of neighborhoods.

Source: Mercury News, Howard Mintz
http://www.mercurynews.com/real-estate-news/crime-courts/ci_29576352/u-s-supreme-court-leaves-san-jose-housing.html

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

The Attainable American Dream? Not in These Major Tech Hubs

shutterstock_182798594

Technology jobs mean booming housing markets in Denver, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle, as young people flock there looking for high-paying jobs. But what’s great for the economy may not be so good for want-to-be homeowners.

According to the Zillow Housing Confidence Index (ZHCI), residents of these cities are feeling less optimistic about the housing market, with more people saying now is a bad time to buy than just six months ago.

Of the tech hubs in the survey, Denver had the biggest drop in people who said now is a good time to buy a home: just 46 percent in July, down from 54 percent when surveyed back in January.

San Jose had the next biggest drop with 36 percent saying now is a good time to buy, compared to the 43 percent surveyed six months ago. Seattle went down from 57 percent to 51 percent, and San Francisco went down from 45 percent to 40 percent.

“Growth in well-paying tech jobs is undoubtedly helping fuel some of the very rapid home value growth in these markets, along with low inventory and high demand,” said Zillow Chief Economist Svenja Gudell. “This rapid growth can mean different things to different groups. Renters planning to buy may be turned off by rapidly growing home values, bidding wars and a highly competitive housing landscape. Many renters may need to lengthen their timelines as they take longer to save for a down payment.

“Other long-time residents may be pushed out of these cities as the cost of housing rises too far, too fast,” Gudell continued. “But for current homeowners, rapid home value appreciation means substantial gains in equity. And some sellers may decide to capitalize on recent gains in home values and list their home for sale, boosting inventory.”

With home values continually on the rise in these cities, young people are less certain they’ll be able to afford a home of their own. In January, 18 percent of 18- to 34-year-old renters in San Francisco planned to buy within a year. Now, that number has dropped significantly to just 8 percent. Similar patterns hold true among young people in Seattle, San Jose and Denver.

For more information about Zillow’s survey and housing data, check out Zillow Research.

Source: Zillow Blog, Jordyn Lee
http://www.zillow.com/blog/home-buyers-major-tech-hubs-183208/

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Bay Area Housing Affordability Index

Some may think us Realtors want homes to be more expensive because we get paid on commission, but what we really want are homes to be more affordable - so more people can buy. In the right market, there is a balance between the two. Check out the great info graphic from the California Association of Realtors.


Friday, August 28, 2015

Top 6 Home Buyer Concerns

Rising home prices tops the list of home buyer concerns this year, a shift from last year when nearly half of buyers said their chief concern was the limited number of homes for-sale, according to a new survey of more than 3,500 buyers released by the real estate brokerage Redfin.

In this year's survey, nearly 27 percent of respondents cited high or rising home prices as their top concern. Another 17 percent of respondents said they were most concerned about competition from other buyers.

First-time buyers were particularly worried about rising home prices. Thirty-one percent of first-time buyers said that higher home prices were their top concern.

The survey identified the following top six home buyer concerns this year:

1. Affordability: "Prices are rising too high" – 27%
2. "There's too much competition from other buyers" – 17%
3. "There aren't enough homes to choose from" – 14%
4. "I need to sell a home first" – 8%
5. "I might not have enough for a down payment" – 6%
6. "Mortgage rates will go up before I can buy" – 5%

Last year, the top buyer concern identified was inventory, followed by home prices, competition from other buyers, rising mortgage rates, and home-shopping fatigue.

Source: Realtor Magazine Online
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2015/08/24/top-6-home-buyer-concerns?om_rid=AAFmZk&om_mid=_BV22KqB9EzhVhi&om_ntype=RMODaily
Redfin
https://www.redfin.com/research/reports/real-time-market-sentiment/2015/home-prices-weigh-heavily-on-buyers-as-mortgage-rate-worry-recedes.html#.VduzU_ZVhBe

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The 8 Biggest Concerns for REALTORS®

The affordability issue is a big one for me. I can think of a number of sellers who what to sell their existing home and purchase a bigger home or downsize to a smaller home but don't because they don't believe they can afford the next home. So they decide not to put their property on the market, which decreases the inventory, which makes prices go even higher. It's a serious problem here in the Silicon Valley and elsewhere.


Photo Source: businessfirstfamily.com


The 8 Biggest Concerns for REALTORS®

REALTORS® are "strongly confident" about the housing market's outlook over the next six months, although confidence has eased since the beginning of this spring, according to the latest REALTORS® Confidence Index, a monthly survey of nearly 3,000 REALTORS® about local market conditions.

In general, REALTORS® continued to report "strong" local market conditions last month for single-family and townhome properties. The strong confidence is being buoyed by strong job creation, the reduction in the Federal Housing Administration's annual mortgage insurance premium rates, and the acceptance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's 3 percent down payment loans.

Still, REALTORS® are reporting several issues with the market. The survey revealed the following top concerns:


  • The upcoming TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure regulations, which take effect Oct. 3, and concerns that they could delay closings. 
  • Tight inventory with a limited number of homes for-sale.
  • Affordability issues: Fewer affordable homes so sellers are also hesitant to move.
  • Financing issues, such as difficulty in qualifying for a mortgage due to higher FICO credit and down payment standards, protracted mortgage approval process, and condo-financing issues.
  • Appraisal issues: conservative estimates, "out-of-town appraisers," and slow turn-around.
  • Rising interest rates.

  • Declining demand from international buyers due to a strong U.S. dollar.

  • Uncertainty about flood insurance rates and reform.


Source: Realtor Magazine Online
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2015/07/27/8-biggest-concerns-for-realtors?om_rid=AAFmZk&om_mid=_BVtnZRB9D6kdQp&om_ntype=RMODaily

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Incrreased Recording Fees Will Fund California Affordable Housing

The California legislator has come up with scheme to raise money for affordable housing by adding a fee for recording documents for refinance and other situations where a document needs to be recorded (such as a trust deed). It won't apply to purchases, so if you are buying a home, you don't have to worry about it, but if you are refinancing, they you will need to pay $75 per document up to $225 max per transaction. The California Association of Realtors endorses the plan and there seems to be some specific measures in place that specify exactly what percentage of the money is used for what.

Not sure how I feel about this yet, but you decide.




INCREASED RECORDING FEES WILL FUND CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING

It appears likely that the California legislature is about to enact a major bill that will provide a permanent source of funding to create housing for low-income individuals and households. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1335, introduced by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D -- San Diego), is expected to raise $300 - $500 million annually. Where will all this money come from? Current and future California homeowners.

AB 1335 would impose new fees on the recording of various sorts of real estate documents. It would not raise fees on the recordings of documents pursuant to a sale transaction. So, for example, in most sales a new trust deed is created in connection with the purchase financing. The recording of that trust deed would not be subject to the fee. However, when a new trust deed is created in the course of refinancing or adding an equity line of credit, the recording of that trust deed would be subject to the fee.

The fee to be imposed is $75 per document. The documents affected include, but are not limited to, the following: grant deed, quitclaim deed, deed of trust, declaration of homestead, notice of default, mechanics lien, CC&Rs, easement, abstract of judgment, and reconveyance.

In any single transaction there is a limit of $225 that can be imposed by these fees. There is no limit to the amount of fees that can be charged over any period of time to the same entity. If, for example, you refinanced twice, you might pay $450 in fees.

The total fees collected, minus any administrative cost to the county recorder, is to be forwarded each quarter to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) where it is to be deposited into the "Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund". The Trust Fund will be administered by a Governing Board.

The legislation requires the following: "(A) Twenty percent of moneys in the fund shall be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing. (B) Ten percent of the money in the fund shall be expended to address affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers and their families."

Among the purposes for which the remainder of the money could be used for are matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds, emergency shelters and transitional housing, accessibility modifications, efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant, or blighted homes, and homeownership opportunities, including but not limited to down payment assistance.

AB 1335 has garnered an unusual amount of support, much of it from specific cities and from a variety of building industry associations. 176 individuals and organizations registered support for the bill. Sixteen registered opposition, twelve of whom were county clerks, assessors, and/or recorders.

The opposition centered on two concerns: (1) the fees might discourage some people from recording documents that they really should (for their protection) record; and (2) nothing in the bill required that any of the money collected would come back to the communities where it was generated.

It came as a surprise to many that the California Association of REALTORS®(CAR) weighed in supporting the bill, as it had opposed a similar bill (SB 391) last year. But this bill differed in important respects (e.g. the $225 cap, and the 20% set aside for homeownership purposes). It probably didn't hurt, either, that the composition of the Trust Fund Governing Board is practically guaranteed to include two representatives from CAR.

Source: RealtyTimes, Bob Hunt
http://realtytimes.com/consumeradvice/buyersadvice1/item/36995-20150728-increased-recording-fees-will-fund-california-affordable-housing

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Are soaring housing costs forcing talent to flee Silicon Valley?

I'm rather bullish on long term prospect for this valley, but according to some this valley suffering more and more from it's own success. Some of this valley's top talent is leaving due to high housing costs. Great article and worth the read.


Soaring housing costs forces talent to flee Silicon Valley

At a recent conference, the founder of one technology titan asked another if it was even possible to build a platform-technology company outside of Silicon Valley. It was a fair question, given the dominance of Google, Facebook and Apple. But from where I sat, it seemed easier to build a company of that size today almost anywhere except Silicon Valley.

Others have had the same thought. A spate of start-ups and now venture funds have recently left Silicon Valley for LA (Snapchat), Chicago (Keepsake), Seattle (Sherbert) and even Ohio (Drive).

The company where I work, Redfin, understands this impulse better than anyone. We are real estate brokers, with technology used by 10 million-plus people each month looking to move. And the simplest trend we see in American life is that Silicon Valley is no longer just the place talented people move to; it's the place those people are moving from.

The dam has broken

In 2011, 1 in 7 people in the Bay Area searched Redfin.com for homes outside of the Bay Area. Now it's 1 in 4. As Adam Wiener, our chief growth officer, announced to other executives last month: "The dam has broken."

In the past four years, the number of Bay Area people searching for Seattle homes has quadrupled; for Portland homes, that number has quintupled. For every 13 Bay Area people searching for a home, one is now searching in the Pacific Northwest alone.

Where Bay Area People Search Redfin.com for Homes to Buy
Market
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Bay Area85.50%83.90%83.60%81.60%75.80%
Sacramento4.30%5.60%4.70%5.60%7.00%
Southern California6.00%5.60%4.80%5.50%5.20%
Seattle1.20%1.30%1.40%2.10%5.10%
Portland0.50%0.60%0.90%0.90%2.60%
Other2.50%2.90%4.60%4.30%4.40%
(Source: Redfin.com)
The new norm: 20% above asking price

And these aren't just idle online searches. One of our Denver employees had a simple answer for where she is now meeting our clients: "at the airport," with many flying in from northern California.

Silicon Valley transplants have become so common that Redfin's Boston agents just this week reported resentment among locals who can't compete. "My God, they are pouring in," Redfin's Boston broker, Alex Coon, wrote me this morning, "particularly in Cambridge and Somerville."

The result? According to Matt Zborezny, the Redfin agent for that area, 20 percent above asking price is the new norm.

Can't afford to stay

Folks are leaving Silicon Valley, mostly because they can't afford to stay. For the first time ever, the median price for a Silicon Valley home just exceeded $1 million. That's about double what it is in other tech cities, like Boston or Seattle, and triple what it is in aspiring technology hubs, like Portland, Denver or Austin.

Median home sales price
Market
Median Sales Price
Silicon Valley$1,050,000
Seattle$565,000
Boston$480,000
Portland$375,000
Denver$335,750
Austin$319,655
Chicago$292,000
(Source: Redfin.com)
Those in technology who can afford to stay in Silicon Valley all know it as one of the most beautiful places to live in the world, but a wariness has sunk in as folks from other walks of life are forced to leave: coffee shops are wall-to-wall with aspiring entrepreneurs, and restaurants buzz with talk of valuations and venture capital. It can be too much.

Just today a journalist who has covered technology from San Francisco for nearly a decade told me that people here seem more focused on money than in the past. If that's true, it isn't entirely by choice: People hop from job to job and deal to deal because sometimes that's the only way they can afford to stay.

A pay gap, but not big enough

According to compensation data company PayScale.com, Silicon Valley engineers earn nearly 50 percent more than their Boston counterparts; in Seattle that difference is smaller, but still significant, at 12 percent. Nowhere is the pay difference large enough to offset the cost of housing.

For these mostly entry-level jobs, the median level of experience is two to four years, with marketing managers at five to six years. At the most competitive companies, salaries are significantly higher.

In our own experience at Redfin employing engineers in Seattle and San Francisco, we've noticed that as Google, Facebook and Dropbox have opened Seattle offices, the differences in engineering pay, especially among recent graduates of top computer-science programs, have disappeared. But the pay of all the people responsible for the actual day-to-day operations of the business—in accounting, marketing or human resources—is more closely tied to the local cost of living. This is why, as Glassdoor reports today, the best places for jobs in America are now up-and-coming tech hubs like Raleigh and Austin, ranking ahead of San Jose or San Francisco.

Our board, which once encouraged us to pay whatever it takes to hire engineers in San Francisco, is now also asking if we want to explore opening engineering offices in Portland and Austin. Technologies such as Slack, SourceTree and Stash, and examples of purely virtual companies such as Automattic and GitHub, have made it easier than ever for people to contribute from anywhere. And those folks are more likely to stick around. The CEO of a publicly traded Internet company recently told me the people in his recently opened Midwest office see it "not just as a job but as a career."

Commercial rents are nearly double

Salaries aren't the only costs that are lower in other places. Silicon Valley commercial rents are nearly double what they would be in Denver or Portland, and 50 percent higher than Austin or Seattle. For a 100-person office, the difference is $400,000 a year, lowering operating expenses by about 2 percent; in a typical software company with 15 percent margins, this difference is significant.

Class A office space commercial rents
Market
Gross Rental Rate: $/Square Foot/Year
Annual Rent: 15,000 Square Feet
Silicon Valley$55.20$828,000
Boston$49.95$749,250
Chicago$41.00$615,000
Austin$36.27$544,050
Seattle$36.26$543,900
Portland$30.73$460,950
Denver$28.59$428,850
(Source: CBRE)
Many high-tech businesses are starting to worry about the rent: When we asked a CBRE broker, Owen Rice, for this data, he wrote back with a funny-that-you-should-ask email, noting that "more and more we are creating multimarket analyses for our clients," including those based in a suddenly more expensive Seattle, as well as the Valley.

Priceless innovation

But what about the original question—whether it's possible to build a technology platform company outside Silicon Valley. A platform company builds technology used by other technology companies, from the iPhone that runs other applications to the Facebook login we use to access other websites, compounding each employee's leverage. This is why Facebook's market value exceeds $20 million per employee.

These companies don't have to worry about expenses much. As my first mentor in Silicon Valley, Kirill Sheynkman, once explained to me at a French restaurant, the point in an innovation economy isn't to spend less, it's to make more. And for a platform company, the value of being close to the technology companies that build on your platform is priceless.

But as our industry matures, the pressure will be on profits, not just revenues. And few high-tech companies get as much leverage as Facebook from each employee. Even a platform company like Twitter is worth about four times less per employee than Facebook. With less equity to burn, Twitter has had to be the pacesetter in raising San Francisco engineering salaries, which is why its stock is now under so much earnings pressure. Only the techiest of tech companies—and only their tech people—don't feel the pinch.

Now of course, Silicon Valley isn't going to empty out. Its population remained constant over the last decade and will remain so again in this one. More people will come here, but more will leave, too. The result will be the Valley-fication of America, a form of gentrification more extreme than most of America has seen before, with high-tech jobs, high incomes and more expensive coffee, yoga studios and—yes—houses, too.

Source: CNBC, Glenn Kelman
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102697372

Thursday, April 9, 2015

San Jose affordable housing law faces key legal test

The cost of housing here in the Silicon Valley is through the roof. It's great for homeowners looking to sell, and it's great for us Realtors, but not so much for low income buyers. Renters are fairing no better in trying to find affordable apartments to rent. This trend of ever escalating housing costs has not gone unnoticed by the powers that be here in the valley.

So, The City of San Jose has lead the way with it's push for affordable housing, much to the dismay of developers. So what that means for developers is that when they want to build a new condo complex, the city won't grant them the right to build unless that builder designates at least 15% of their unit units for affordable housing. So if you are a developer who wants to build a 100 unit luxury condo complex in the City of San Jose, before the city will grant you the permits to build, you have pledge 15 of those 100 units as below market properties for low income buyers. If you say, "screw that, I only want my luxury condo complex for high end buyers!" That's fine by city, it's your chose, you just have to pay fee to the tune of $100K+ per property.

So developers got fed up with this meddling by the city in the free market in the housing industry, in their view, and took the city to court. San Jose's affordable housing law has temporarily been put on hold until it can be reviewed by the California supreme court, which will make its ruling this week.