It is time to peak at Abraham Maslow’s 1943 hierarchy of needs so we can better understand people living at the lower end of the hierarchy. Living at the high end can make us a bit oblivious to the obvious.

The greedy landlords/owners!!! Some day their greed and treatment of their fellow human beings will come back to bite them on the hind end. Shame, shame, shame on them!!!!!!! ;(

How is it "their" home if they are renters? Aren't they leaseholders? Is this misleading fake news or is there a law where if you rent somewhere long enough you get to own it then?

Your home is where you live. A house or apartment is property. Rich people may not understand what renting is like.

Mary is right. Just like anyone else in the country, no one is entitled to live anywhere they like, if it is too expensive then move somewhere else. This entitlement and privilege mentality killing the country.

I came to this country and didn't move to Menlo Park. Why? Because it was too expensive. Not SF. Why? Too expensive. I was responsible and worked three jobs out in Arizona before making something of myself. Once I had enough money, meaning people voluntarily gave me money because I provided them with goods and services they valued, only then was I able to live in Menlo Park.

Parent:

I've rented and I've owned. I'm quite familiar with the difference. Never when I rented did I consider the property I rented as "mime." Because it wasn't. I you want a home that belongs to you, buy it.

People,

Have you ever lived in a residence that you didn't personally own? When heading back to your apartment/dorm room/etc., did you say "I'm heading to my leased domicile now"? or did you refer to it as "home"? I didn't see this article preaching the gospel of squatter's rights. Let's not to be glib when discussing something so serious.

Housing displacement is a major issue in this area: for grad students, service workers, families, etc. I was standing in a long, slow line in the understaffed Starbucks on Avy the other day and the employees were discussing how everyone was quitting because they couldn't afford to live here...which is too bad, because it's hard for me to make my own coffee before I've had coffee (and I suspect I'm not alone here). There are so many people who work for us: nurses, school teachers (yes, even the highly paid Menlo Park school teachers often end up commuting long distances from places more affordable), restaurant employees, gardeners, health care aides, nannies, bank tellers, retail workers, etc.

I don't know about you, Kevin, but coffee, health care, etc. are goods and services that I do value. We need more affordable housing, period.

I don't think the answer is rent control, which unfairly penalizes landlords while benefiting a random set of people. It's probably just building more housing, period. A thought leader recently described local government and NIMBYism as "death by a thousand cuts." We need to do better.

Katie, you make some excellent points on a profoundly important topic.

But you lost me with your reference to a "thought leader" (wince ... moan ... wail) who described NIMBYism (agreed) and local government (?!) as death by a thousand cuts. Local government? Did this person you refer to offer an alternative to local government, or did he/she qualify the statement to mean "incompetent" local government? Or, does this person think Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. would do a better job keeping our society and economy in fine working order?

I'm kinda stuck on:

"it's hard for me to make my own coffee before I've had coffee"

Thot that was just me...

Seriously: this will continue to have long lasting repercussions. I don't know the answer. But I am really weary of hearing about yet another family/co-worker/friend/relative electing to bail because they can't make it here.

Awful.

Pre-coffee, so bear with me.

"Thinking for myself", re: "thought leader"–-touché. ;-) Ham-handed term, that. Let's say...former White House Economic Council Member/business leader/entrepreneur focused on job development.

But the point the guy was making (sorry; couldn't find a better way to identify him without naming him, and the conversation was in a private setting) was this: housing and transportation issues that we face aren't problems that can be solved exclusively at the federal and state levels. Local governments are supposed to devise housing elements, transportation plans, etc. But all too often, at least here, the planning is as far as it goes.

Have you ever sat through a planning commission meeting? Have you noticed how much energy people put into debating the livelihood of one tree, or the energetic front that a neighborhood will throw up to avoid having extra development in their proximity? Remember the Willow Rd. under-crossing that never happened? The ceaseless debate over how and when and whether to separate our grades, mostly necessitating periodic costly study sessions?

I don't want to be overly snarky. We're probably all NIMBYs at heart. No one wants to deal with extra traffic or reduced property values or whatever else they fear will change as our community moves from a 1950s single-family-home, car-centric suburban existence to a denser, more urban place. I remember the words "village character" being used a lot during the Measure M days. It's hard when you buy into one kind of community and watch it evolve into another. Business booms are a double-edged sword.

But meanwhile, vacant lots stay vacant. Housing costs soar, which definitely benefits homeowners, at least financially, especially those who bought before the tech booms. I don't think we can preserve our village under glass in light of the change around us...not if we still want lattes, or nurses, or after school care providers. And the negative externalities that also affect our quality of life, albeit more indirectly, are becoming clear: traffic. Road rage. Smog. Displacement. Turnover.

Strong, effective local government is essential. There is no alternative, although companies devise workarounds all the time, which mostly end up benefiting them. See: Google buses. Facebook-funded police force. Stanford building housing that they exclusively will use (not a company, but you catch my drift). But it's also not super functional right here right now. Maybe that's the case everywhere?

Thanks for the explanation, Katie. And for the thoughtful and intelligent comments on a topic that way too often turns heartless.

Rent control works well. Good tenants remain housed, landlords receive a fair return on their investment, there is better socioeconomic diversity to address various jobs needs in a community, students who are tenants - including grad students - perform better in school, and communities are overall better stabilized.

You can enjoy your home whether you're a tenant or a homeowner. Smart tenants respect the property that they're leading. Smart residential landlords know their property is someone else's home. The laws reflect the truth that a tenant's home is someone else's property.

But this article actually deals with very serious, life-changing and often ruinous results of this housing crisis. Those of us who've never had to experience this type of disruptive debacle are lucky, not morally or intellectually superior, because it happens even to smart people who make good choices.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?