> Richest Silicon Valley Suburb<p>Not just richest in SV, but in the <i>entire United States</i>, for the fifth year in a row - <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/10-most-expensive-zip-codes-in-the-us-in-2021.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/10-most-expensive-zip-codes-...</a><p>Also, recent prior story: <i>Marc Andreessen says he’s for new housing, but records tell a different story</i>
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32350657" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32350657</a>
The original article showing Marc Andreessen's comment dropped August 4th.<p>Since then, the only public statement he's made is this announcement on August 15th, investing in Flow:<p><a href="https://a16z.com/2022/08/15/investing-in-flow/" rel="nofollow">https://a16z.com/2022/08/15/investing-in-flow/</a><p>"Our nation has a housing crisis.<p>The demographic trends driving America’s housing market are impossible to ignore: our country is creating households faster than we’re building houses..."
What I don’t understand is why cities like Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Cupertino allowed to add office spaces for 100,000+ jobs but not required to add a similar number of residences for the people who work those jobs?<p>Atherton isn’t building a tech campus (or any office/retail for that matter), why should it be forced to build housing to accommodate people who work in nearby towns that choose to prioritize commercial space over residential?
It is in California State government’s best interest to devise policies that encourage higher fluidity of housing market as a form of increasing the revenue generating flow into their general funds;<p>- stoke the housing market,<p>- encourage foreign ownerships and take over of precious homes<p>- make people move,<p>- push senior citizens out of their home<p>- reset valuation of residential for the primary purpose of higher taxes and thusly more flow into the state general fund.<p>Fixed tax rate (Prop 13) on residential taxation is that California politicians’ over-perceived limiting factor of increasing revenue flow into their state budget. They only can resort to higher income tax (13.3%) or higher sales tax (10.75%) or more of those other add-on taxes (like the misleading and diminishing triple (sales/excise/use) gasoline tax).<p>Given that California income tax and sales tax are already crazy high, the biggest political brass ring not-yet-grabbed remaining is this increasing more of the residential taxation; all her politicians are training their eyes on this residential tax as a form of potential increasing tax flow.<p>And cities/towns knows this too.<p>So the building of commercial/industrial properties shall and will continue on, unabated, at full-steam ahead; housing, not so much.<p>Is it a fault of the Golden State politicians? Ye-up! They just do not like governing with handcuffed but limited revenue flow so they go all myopic and actually govern without the long-range foresights of much needed housings, and instead flood their land with commercial/industrial zones.<p>Don’t blame the Prop 13. It’s no different than other states’ no or lower property tax on residential tracts.<p>Many senior citizens (and state workers) living on limited Social Security retirement/wage, who own their homes for the long haul are not likely to be evicted by higher residential taxation (protected by Prop. 13) on their home, will rest comfortably until pushed out by even more and inexorably higher and newer state sales/excise/use (sky’s the limit) taxation.<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California#Sales_tax" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_California#Sales...</a>
I'm not sure why people feel entitled to live in a certain area. Even to go as far as to tell the people who do live there that they should in their kind hearts do what we say, instead of what they want.