Menlo Park: Tuesday deadline for teachers to apply for subsidized apartments

So these subsidized apartments for teachers will revert to full price rental in 5 years? and then where are these teachers suppose to live? Teachers paying a reduced rent of $2500 still will be unable to save to buy in the area. the City needs to do better - as does Facebook.

When "contractor's specials" listed at $1.8M are selling for $2.5M, no matter how much the city or FB does, there's little hope for this city recovering some semblance of affordability for any non VC professionals any time soon. And the City insists on building 1 or 2 BR dense housing units, very few 3 BR dense housing units (they want young professionals, but not families). I don't think people realize how big the underlying crisis is because the crust is still standing while the bottom is completely eroded out in this housing market. This community will suffer in many ways for a very long time to come. How much more will local residents and businesses have to pay to continue to recruit service labor from living in Livermore, and Morgan Hill?

It would be very interesting to look at the data on teachers who are leaving/have left schools over the past four years to ascertain how much of their decision to leave the peninsula were based upon 1) Traffic 2)Local Housing Affordability 3)School Climate 4)Salary
It is hard for me to see how any school district will be able to attract and retain highly qualified teachers given the growing problems associated with economic forces/realities and regional growth.

I worry for the future of our communities and nation...

The additional housing inventory is welcome, but it's in a horrible location. There are no neighborhood serving businesses over there (grocery stores, CVS/Target type stores, dry cleaners, or hair/nail salons. Which means every who lives in these new apartments is just going to add to the congestion on Willow and Marsh Roads.

The City Council and City staff need to prioritize more high-density development along the Caltrain corridor, with the attendant below market-rate units requirements.

"It would be very interesting to look at the data on teachers who are leaving/have left schools over the past four years to ascertain how much of their decision to leave the peninsula were based upon 1) Traffic 2)Local Housing Affordability 3)School Climate 4)Salary"

That's likely going to depend on the school district.

By the way, keep in mind that the average MPCSD teacher will not qualify for this perk since the average income for a MPCSD teacher is in excess of $100,000/year, and that is not including the other financial benefits included in their compensation (pension, for example): Web Link

"It would be very interesting to look at the data on teachers who are leaving/have left schools over the past four years to ascertain how much of their decision to leave the peninsula were based upon 1) Traffic 2)Local Housing Affordability 3)School Climate 4)Salary"

Is the school district going to provide us with this data? I think it's more than interesting. I think it's important to know. How else can we determine what we need to do to prevent teachers from leaving?

How wonderful-not- to attend university for 4 years plus a minimum of one year for credentialing and then be faced with accepting charity in order to live where you teach. Yes, it is charity of sorts. After studying for 5 years, it is appalling to be faced with applying for subsidized housing, especially knowing you won't be able to save enough to eventually buy your own house.

@Train Fan: while it is true that few, if any, teachers will qualify for this, it is not accurate to claim that teachers make an 'average' of $100,00. Including administrators salaries in the average does not give an accurate picture of teachers' salaries. Further, it certainly does not represent the pay of recent hires. Teachers who have been with the District for many years were probably able to buy homes before Silicon Valley inflation took over. It is not so for newer teachers.

" It is not so for newer teachers"

It's never been so for newer teachers. Nor newer any career. We all start out making very little money and have to work hard and ascend in the ranks over time to attain an income that allows us to purchase homes. And guess what? Many of us can never attain an income sufficient to buy a home where we work. I do plenty of work in Atherton. I certainly will never earn enough money to live there. Should I expect subsidized housing so I can?

"I do plenty of work in Atherton. I certainly will never earn enough money to live there. Should I expect subsidized housing so I can?"

Flawed logic, chuckles.

These teachers work for a school district in Menlo Park. To somehow expect them to commute 2+ hours to and from school -- considering that their jobs are easily 50+ hours a week *minimum* -- is not realistic.

And I seem to remember that you said that you are a homeowner in Menlo Park. So why are you so worked up over this scheme? No one is going to take your house away any time soon, if ever...

yet more:

There are plenty of people, many in the construction industry, that are making 2+ hour commutes to work 50+ hours per week. So, your assertion that somehow teachers are different is flawed, chuckles.

Where did I say anywhere in what I posted that I was worried about someone taking my house away, spanky?

Menlo Voter: "I do plenty of work in Atherton. I certainly will never earn enough money to live there. Should I expect subsidized housing so I can?"

My goodness, I had no idea that teachers were being subsidized to live in Atherton! I believe they are being offered housing in Belle Haven, which is not quite the same as Atherton or even West Menlo. But then, why on earth should a mere teacher aspire to owning a home in Menlo Park!

As for commenting that people must work for some time to afford a house---how long, in your estimation, should that take? MP district teachers take at least 7-8 years to earn between $70,229 to $74,812. Is 7 years long enough to suit you? The salary at 7 years would not even qualify one to buy a shack in this area! At 10 years their salary of $78,993 or so would still not qualify a teacher to buy in the Bay Area.
A 'techie' could, however, be earning enough to buy here within a few years. I therefore advised my daughter against a teaching career. She now works for a high tech corporation and can afford a home in MP--unlike teachers.

Over and out on this topic.

"Over and out on this topic."

Then what was the point in asking me a question?

Menlo v. What was the point in asking you a question--no point since your response would be predictable. Sometimes questions are rhetorical.

"it is not accurate to claim that teachers make an 'average' of $100,00.(sic)"

You clearly didn't click on the link I provided.

MPCSD teachers absolutely make, on average, in excess of $100,000 in salary, and that does not include bonuses. This is indisputable, and does not include other financial benefits.

Again, here is the link: Web Link

We can (probably) agree that many teachers in other school districts are not as fortunate. But that was the point of my post: this perk isn't applicable to most teachers in the MPCSD because they are the highest paid teachers in comparison to all other elementary school districts in the Bay Area.

"Yes, it is charity of sorts."

A agree. I think one of the issues is that the financial compensation teachers get should actually GO TO THE TEACHERS.

It's not a panacea, but the financial compensation issues can be at least partially addressed by taking the money that goes to that bloated, unsustainable pension (and away from the people that manage it), and actually have the money under the control of the people that EARN IT: the teachers.

"MP district teachers take at least 7-8 years to earn between $70,229 to $74,812."

Where did you get this data? Proof, please. This does not jive with ed-data.org. MPCSD teachers, on average, make over 100k (currently around 103k, not including other financial benefits), with an average experience of 9 years: Web Link


"Is 7 years long enough to suit you?"

When I graduated, NOBODY made me any guarantees on when I'd be able to buy a house. And after 7 years, I still couldn't afford a house. Do you know what I did? I did 3 things:

1: I lived under my means. I mean seriously under. I'm a "techie" with a Computer Science degree in Silicon valley, and I was renting an 8x10 room for years.

2: I bought WHAT I could afford: a condo.

3: I bought WHERE I could afford: not Menlo Park (or Mountain View for that matter).

You do not have right to expect to live wherever you want to live.

Your entitlement is GALLING, frankly.


"A 'techie' could, however, be earning enough to buy here within a few years."

"techies" don't get 17 weeks off every year. "techies" don't get a pension.

"Sometimes questions are rhetorical."

Then why direct them to me specifically? You don't know me. You actually don't KNOW what my answer might be. You assumed you know, but that's not knowing. Best of luck to you living in a world where you already know all of the answers. Over and out.

"When I graduated, NOBODY made me any guarantees on when I'd be able to buy a house. And after 7 years, I still couldn't afford a house. Do you know what I did? I did 3 things:

1: I lived under my means. I mean seriously under. I'm a "techie" with a Computer Science degree in Silicon valley, and I was renting an 8x10 room for years.

2: I bought WHAT I could afford: a condo.

3: I bought WHERE I could afford: not Menlo Park (or Mountain View for that matter).

You do not have right to expect to live wherever you want to live.

Your entitlement is GALLING, frankly."

What Train Fan said. The entitlement attitude is really getting tiring. When I graduated from high school I got a job and moved out of the house. I lived with roommates as that is what I could ACTUALLY afford. I had NO expectation that someone (not even my parents) should somehow supplement my income so I could afford something better.

I then proceeded to work my way through college. Took six years as I couldn't work full time and go to school full time. When I graduated from college I had zero expectation of being able to graduate and walk into a job that paid well enough that I could buy a house. Nor did I expect that I wouldn't have to work MANY years to get to the point that I could. And that's what I actually had to do. (BIG SURPRISE!)

Yet, today there is an expectation that just because someone is a teacher or a police officer or a fire fighter or who knows what else that we should make it so they shouldn't have to buy a home where their career choice actually allows them to buy a home. No, we're supposed to subsidize their ability to buy a home they in a location they normally CANNOT afford.

If it becomes so bad that we cannot attract qualified teaching candidates (that hasn't happened) or that we can't get our homes cleaned or our lawns mowed or what ever service we pay for at the current rate, guess what? The current rate WILL GO UP. The one fly in that ointment is illegal immigration. Control that and you will see wages for the unskilled work rise. Rapidly.

Bottom line? We all make decisions in life as to what we will do to make a living. We have no "right" to a home in a specific location other than what our life decisions afford us.

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

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