Facebook plans to invest $150 million to build 2,000 homes for low-income residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The Silicon Valley-based social media giant said Wednesday the money would support the development of affordable homes for families making less than 30 percent of the region’s median income.
— The Real Deal
According to The Real Deal, "the funds will be available to local governments and nonprofit groups in the form of low-interest loans. Projects in San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties are eligible. " The investment is due for full distribution by 2026, reports The Real Deal.
35 Comments
This is like Facebook donating 300m to "strengthen elections" ...
150 whole million. Wow, thanks. You still Zuck.
While it's better than nothing, it certainly feels like far too little far too late.
Nevermind the larger philosophical implications of voluntary philanthropy attempting to fill holes left by a lack of public policy initiative.
So you prefer involuntary philanthropy? Because it’s obviously more moral to be obedient than to be altruistic...got it!
I think you missed the part about lack of public policy and hoping for philanthropy to fill in the need. He never said anything against philanthropy to lead you to your conclusion.
Do you know what all of these cities with housing issues have in common?
We call it "taxes" and, yes.
"Do you know what all of these cities with housing issues have in common?"
A steady flow of inward migration and a small but loud minority of local homeowners who are resistant to growth and have outsized political clout.
I'm more curious to know if all the cities without housing issues have loads of altruistic philanthropists.
Tduds, “inward migration” ??? citations needed. More like outward migration, but ok.
What cities are we talking about here?
There might be some momentary downturns in urban population over the past 6-9 months because of COVID, but my prediction is that these are temporary and won't do much to undo the decades long trends of American migration to certain cities. And in any case, housing problems in those cities (Thinking west coast and northeast) were around long before COVID and will likely remain the same post-COVID. It's simple: too many people want to live here* and not enough housing is being built where people want to live
(*"Here" = Seattle, Portland, SF, LA, NYC, Boston, DC. There might be others but these are the places I have experience with. I'll find some stats if you require)
This is from 2018 but the overall problems haven't changed: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-goldilocks-problem-of-housing-supply-too-little-too-much-or-just-right/
Not true. People have been moving to the sunbelt at a rate far higher rate than the cities you mentioned. NYCs population has declined every years since 2016.
More of a problem for the over bloated tax dependent states (something I predicted and argued over a decade ago) was that the tax payer base would leave high burden cities as technology untethers them geographically. This is happening now in CA.... https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/13/tech/silicon-valley-moving-to-austin-miami/index.html
Not only Is the middle class leaving because of high living costs and property taxes, but companies are leaving too for less burdensome states.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/section-2/californias-outbound-migration-continues-with-some-in-state-diversions/amp/
My original statement included an "and" that should not be ignored.
And yes what I said was simplified, half-sarcastic, and definitely not the *entire* truth, but the two factors I mentioned *are* part of the complicated calculus of housing problems.
But you also haven't answered your own question. "Do you know what all of these cities with housing issues have in common?" I don't want to assume your response will be equally if not more simplistic, so here's your chance.
High taxes, sure, but more importantly the urban centers have all seen a shift from commodified utility, to a commodified urbanity.
If the urbanity is no longer appealing, and the premium is too high, the place loses the only feature that was keeping people there- the lifestyle stuff. Very few industries require urban density like they once did.
I think both of those factors apply to the upper-middle to upper class of city dwellers, and the latter far more than the former.
You're not wrong but like I said above there are probably hundreds of intersecting and seemingly contradictory reasons (since different cohorts are influenced by different motivations, and a positive influence for some is a negative influence for others). Irrespective of all that, it's plainly obvious to me that the US in general, and the cities I mentioned above in particular, aren't building enough housing or with enough density. Why it's happening and how to fix it are more difficult to nail down, but there's your "housing issue"
Besides the fact that Zuckerberg is a shithead, and the 150mil is a tax deduction or something, let’s not make it un-woke to be a philanthropist. It’s better than buying another yacht or private jet.
Sure. Just to clarify my original comment was never intended as a criticism of Zuckerberg (or any individual) but of society. Hating the game, not the player.
Uh...
$150 M gets you $75K per unit. At 900 square feet per unit, that's $83 a square foot. Now if you double up in a dorm room, at roughly 300 square feet per bed, that $150 M buys $250 a square foot.
So, my take away is that FaceBook is building affordable dormitories in Idaho for the Bay Area. It's virtually like you're in the Bay Area!
Haaa... ZUCKED again :(
Everyone talking trash... how many million did you invest in affordable housing?
As a percentage of my worth, more than Zuckerberg.
Exactly, tduds, me too. I've invested a LOT more in charitable giving than Zuck has.
We all know that in order to criticize anything, you must first be perfect. Where's tduds with his dril tweet?
I have it saved on my desktop.
morons
Pessimist.
A lot of architecture firms are after these types of commissions.
In fact, monies are going to local developers with low interest is a good thing. So, they have to be keen on what kind of projects they will support. It should go to truly good ideas and where the target people will benefit.
Wasn't it news other mega-companies were looking at it too?
Let them do it. If the result is similar to those popping up in every redevelopment area apartments with jazzed up facades with decorative screens and unused balconies, those with high rents or ownership, then you know it's no good or effective as a model.
The housing situation is so desperate in large cities that we might not be able to say not good ahead of time.
Yes, they are there and the communities must strongly negotiate the telltale signs.
Facebook bank dry run?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.