How do teachers live in SF Bay area? (San Jose, Oakland: real estate, rentals)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It's only very recently (in the last year or so) that rents in the East Bay have gotten almost too high for a teacher's salary. Not sure how that's going to affect the supply of teachers in the area. A solution one Bay Area community came up with a couple of decades ago was to buy a couple of apartment buildings and provide low-rent apartments to public servants like teachers, police, and firefighters, so they could afford to live in the community they serve. That would be a model worth studying and emulating throughout the Bay Area.

It doesn't solve the underlying problem of lack of housing supply. It solves it for teachers, but only sort of. Maybe the teachers don't want to live in a teacher's only ghetto created by the school district.

What really needs to happen is they need to build more freakin' housing. Much of the lack of housing supply is self imposed because of layers of zoning restrictions and other red tape:

Why Middle-Class Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Cities - The Atlantic

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That's not true across the board for teachers. There's still a shortage of math and science teachers, but no one's offering premium pay for those. It's not a supply-and-demand system. New Mexico has always had a huge teacher shortage, yet teaching was severely underpaid until Gov. Bill Richardson raised teacher pay a few years ago. Teachers in the early years of their careers couldn't afford to live in their own place in some communities; they had to live with their parents, the pay was so bad. Job categories that fall under a state budget aren't subject to market forces as much as they're subject to weak state budgets in poor states, or budget-hamstrung states like CA. Theoretically, private schools would be different, since they're not dependent on the state budget, but private school teacher pay doesn't exceed, and rarely equals, public school pay.

So much for market theory.

Actually, your post PROVES market theory more than it discounts it. The problem here is we're dealing with the state, which reacts very slowly or not at all to other signals in the market. It's not that market forces don't apply. It's that they're not allowed to work in the first place (teachers' unions that don't allow math/science teachers to be paid more, land use regulations that prevent more housing from being built in SF/Bay Area, etc.)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Actually, your post PROVES market theory more than it discounts it. The problem here is we're dealing with the state, which reacts very slowly or not at all to other signals in the market. It's not that market forces don't apply. It's that they're not allowed to work in the first place (teachers' unions that don't allow math/science teachers to be paid more, land use regulations that prevent more housing from being built in SF/Bay Area, etc.)

That was my point. Teaching isn't a market-driven system, and there are many reasons for that.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That was my point. Teaching isn't a market-driven system, and there are many reasons for that.

And my point is it could be at least somewhat more market driven.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

And my point is it could be at least somewhat more market driven.

I agree. I suggested the system be reformed so that that would be possible, earlier in the thread.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I agree. I suggested the system be reformed so that that would be possible, earlier in the thread.

You realize that being more market driven means a reduction in the influence of unions? I don't remember you making a push for a more market driven approach, but I could be confusing you with another poster as well.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

You realize that being more market driven means a reduction in the influence of unions? I don't remember you making a push for a more market driven approach, but I could be confusing you with another poster as well.

I said paying people to do nothing all day every day because you're not allowed to fire them, or the procedures are too problematic is extreme, and something should be done about it, some kind of reform is needed.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Just responding to a portion, but they are starting to dabble with outsourcing education. Just look at the on line based educations systems. They are creeping out of college and into high school level education. It is not hard to envision TA working with on line based educational programs, effectively doing away with the majority of teachers. (I am not saying this is the best approach, it might be, it might not, but it is a reality of the next couple of decades, pairing even more students with the few truely gifted teachers).

And to the long time homeowners you mentioned above, they are protected by prop 13 and are unlikely to move. When the owners die, the houses are melts by the family because they can keep the same reduced property tax rate. Many times these houses never make it to market.

Not my experience... every time a long term homeowner passes around here the kids sell to get the money... now if there is only one heir it could be different.

Kids seldom want to move back into mom and dad's house, neighborhood or city...

Remember... Prop 13 applies equally to all property that is assessed in the State... makes no difference if the home was bought 30 years ago or yesterday...

Also, Prop 13 does not allow heirs to keep the tax rate unchanged... that was another Prop passed several years later and only applies to parent/child transfers unless the parent is deceased... then it can be grandparent/grandchild...

[Ultrarunner]

Teacher is a very broad term... the Bay Area is home to world class Universities and they are paid well...

Several of my high school friends became teachers and they are all doing well in the East Bay... two couples are both teachers with one couple working for Oakland Unified...

None went out and bought their forever homes... all started with fixers in what some would call questionable neighborhoods and moved several times until they landed their forever homes... it actually worked quite well since they could plan big projects over spring break and summers...

[jade408]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

You can live here if you make the median income or less. You just won't buy your own home. Not being able to buy a "SFH in an excellent school district" doesn't mean you can't live in the area.

And most non-military public servants are paid too much as it is.

Nope. The median rent in Oakland is like $2200 right now. Technically you need $80k to afford that. Median teacer salary is $65k.

Not enough to afford the median apartment. In fact it isn't enough to live in most decent neighborhoods.