Mountain View Whisman School District officials are moving full-steam ahead on exploring ways to house teachers in Mountain View at below-market-rate prices. And while it's not clear what the district-owned teacher housing project would look like, a new survey suggests it would be wildly popular among district staff hungry for affordable housing.
Earlier this year, the school board agreed to look for ways to build a housing development on district land for Mountain View teachers struggling to make ends meet in the Bay Area. The high cost of housing, coupled with a salary schedule that is well below the area median income, was frequently cited at the March 17 school board meeting as a serious problem that has forced many teachers to choose between long commutes or leaving the district altogether.
School board members doubled down on that decision at their May 5 meeting, saying that it's time to consider a large-scale teacher housing development on some of the available district-owned land.
Over the last four years, the district has hired about 170 new teachers, mostly to make up for significant teacher turnover year to year, according to the Mountain View Educators Association. Finding enough people to fill vacancies for the 2015-16 school year was particularly challenging for district administrators, who had to go on a frantic hiring spree to fill 55 teaching positions for general education and special education.
Would a teacher housing project decrease turnover and attract more teachers? School staff think so. Recent survey results from 264 teachers and classified employees found that 59 percent of teachers are dissatisfied with their housing situation because of the high cost of rent, and an overwhelming majority -- 76 percent -- said they would be interested in living in a below-market-rate teacher housing project if it became available.
The survey results, available on the district website, provide a sobering snapshot of the discontent among district employees. More than two-thirds of the respondents said they are paying more than 30 percent of their paycheck on rent or mortgage payments, with just shy of 17 percent dumping more than half of their take-home pay on housing costs.
"Essentially, we have people working paycheck to paycheck," Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph said at the meeting. "Most of that paycheck is actually just going towards paying the rent. That probably suggests that people have picked up a second job in order to make ends meet."
Just over half of the respondents, 54 percent, said commuting to work takes more than 20 minutes, with 22 percent commuting 46 minutes or more to get to work. And nearly a quarter of those surveyed said they expect to leave the district in the next three years. The main reasons included "insufficient" salaries and the inability to find affordable housing in a good location.
Board President Ellen Wheeler said she was "100 percent" in favor of a teacher housing project, and that finding ways to support teachers in an explosive housing market has been the center of discussion for school districts all over the county and the Bay Area. The survey, she said, underscores the need to take teacher housing more seriously.
"I'm very happy that we can do this for our teachers," Wheeler said. "We see the interest from our teachers; it just makes perfect sense to me."
Board member Greg Coladonato said attracting and retaining teachers is a top priority for the district, and having some kind of affordable housing option available could act as an incentive for teachers to work there.
"I would imagine that if we were able to find a way to make housing available at a more affordable rate that it would attract more teachers," Coladonato said. "It could only increase the attractiveness."
While teacher housing projects in the Bay Area are few and far between, board members showed interest in mimicking something like Santa Clara Unified School District's "Casa Del Maestro" project, which includes 70 units for teachers ranging from $880 to $1,400 a month. Canada College's housing development for faculty and staff, Canada Vista, also has 60 units available for rents ranging from $875 to $1,700.
Board member Bill Lambert gave his support for exploring teacher housing, but said he still needs to be convinced that the plan would be a financially sound investment for the district. He said it's possible that there are more prudent ways to increase retention and satisfaction among school staff, and that jumping into the business of real estate ownership ought to be done with solid information on whether it's actually feasible.
"It should be driven by data, not just warm and fuzzy feelings," Lambert said.
Comments
Cuesta Park
on May 13, 2016 at 1:00 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 1:00 pm
If you were at the meeting, you heard that the housing is targeted for all employees - not just teachers. Schools also need custodians, secretaries and instructional assistants to be successful and those people are paid significantly less than teachers.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Registered user
on May 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm
I couldn't disagree more with this idea! Teachers do a very important job and are a valuable part of our communities. However, that being said, I am growing very concerned that public funds are being used to grant benefits for the exclusive use of public employees at the expense of the taxpayers whom they are supposed to be serving and working for.
Funds for and housing for lower income people should be based solely on income, not political affiliation. I might have missed it in the article, but I see nothing about means testing the teachers or other employees of the school system. Does this mean that teachers earning over $100,000/yr would be eligible? Would this be counted against the low income housing quota/targets even if the employees being granted the housing are not low income?
Once we start down the road of awarding benefits based on political or public sector affiliation, I see only BAD THINGS happening after that.
Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Registered user
on May 13, 2016 at 1:34 pm
I couldn't disagree more with this idea! Teachers do a very important job and are a valuable part of our communities. However, that being said, I am growing very concerned that public funds are being used to grant benefits for the exclusive use of public employees at the expense of the taxpayers whom they are supposed to be serving and working for.
Funds for and housing for lower income people should be based solely on income, not political affiliation. I might have missed it in the article, but I see nothing about means testing the teachers or other employees of the school system. Does this mean that teachers earning over $100,000/yr would be eligible? Would this be counted against the low income housing quota/targets even if the employees being granted the housing are not low income?
Once we start down the road of awarding benefits based on political or public sector affiliation, I see only BAD THINGS happening after that.
Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
Shoreline West
on May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 2:17 pm
The idea of using already owned school land to develop housing for our very important teachers and school staff is an idea I fully support. Using land already owned by the district would decrease the cost for housing development substantially. Keeping good talent local is key to having good talent in our public schools.
Shoreline West
on May 13, 2016 at 2:36 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 2:36 pm
How about just paying teachers a comfortable living wage that is commiserate with the benefit they bring to our community and society? Seems like if we did that, they would all be making enough money to afford decent housing around here.
another community
on May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
Jim is correct! That is my philosophy and look how well it worked during my term.
Slater
on May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 2:49 pm
If the District builds this affordable housing for teachers and staff, those who get in on the deal would be getting a defacto pay raise. Unless the unions accept this as such, they will soon be back asking for more across the board increases. Perhaps those lucky few who get into the program would need to defer future pay raises until wage parody with their market rate colleagues is achieved. Remember, this will all be done with public money, so the option is get paid more and find your own place to live,or live in District housing for a reduced pay scale.
Sylvan Park
on May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 3:17 pm
This is the most sensible target of affordable housing that I can imagine. Teachers and critical city employees should be first on the list.
Old Mountain View
on May 13, 2016 at 4:38 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 4:38 pm
In other news, union employees asked for more money for continuing to do a bad job.
Sylvan Park
on May 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Take the enormous amount of money needed to develop and manage this housing and use it to pay the teachers a living wage. The school district should not be in the property management business.
Rex Manor
on May 13, 2016 at 5:46 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Maybe this is a good idea. But we should all be aware that it is a temporary solution that only helps a small part of Mountain View inhabitants. It won't even help all teachers.
The real solution, that will help everyone, is to build a lot more housing. People are ready and able to do that, if we only let them.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 13, 2016 at 7:30 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 7:30 pm
A solution to all of the housing supply woes is to remove all zoning rules and regulations. Let the market truly be free. If I want to put an 8-plex in the wealthy Waverly Park neighborhood next to the so-called "free market economist" ex-council member's house, who would want to stop me?
Oh, that's right. Mr. Free Market would...
Blossom Valley
on May 13, 2016 at 9:14 pm
on May 13, 2016 at 9:14 pm
"The high cost of housing, coupled with a salary schedule that is well below the area median income, was frequently cited" and both problems need to be addressed.
Building below-market housing will only work if enough low-cost housing is built for everyone who wants to live in Mountain View. When that happens the two-million-dollar-and-up single family houses and $8000/mo "luxury" apartments will no longer cost that much--and the population of Mountain View will be greater than 150,000, with the extra 75,000 people living in 10- to 20-story apartment complexes. And, when that happens there will be more VTA buses than single-driver cars on the roads.
Hiring teachers and other school staff will only become easy when the wages offered are competitive with tech wages.
Unfortunately, all that will never happen. We'll be lucky if the city gets enough housing to house 100.000 people, and school districts raise minimum wage jobs to $15/hour and entry level teachers get $60,000/year.
Monta Loma
on May 14, 2016 at 7:12 am
on May 14, 2016 at 7:12 am
As noted above most teachers and public safety workers will not qualify. Even if they did these units will not work for those wanting a few children . Eventually a teachers income will rise and they will stil retain the huge subsidy. I would much rather see these units go to long time MV seniors allowing them to either downsize and or remain in MV
another community
on May 14, 2016 at 11:34 am
on May 14, 2016 at 11:34 am
The solution here is for teachers to flee the district and let the district feel the pain of a teacher shortage. Only then will teacher salaries rise enough to cover cost of living in the area. If the district subsidizes teacher housing then teacher salaries will remain low.
Registered user
Martens-Carmelita
on May 14, 2016 at 6:15 pm
Registered user
on May 14, 2016 at 6:15 pm
As the author notes, this idea has been tried elsewhere:
Web Link
How well has it worked out, in the long term?
Old Mountain View
on May 15, 2016 at 9:18 am
on May 15, 2016 at 9:18 am
This is a terrible idea and a waste of the MVWSD's "war chest."
1) It effectively does nothing to address the needs of those teachers living outside of MV who are unable (for family or other reasons) to move into MV.
2) It would be logistically difficult to implement. For example, how would the teachers/staff working in the school district get selected to live in subsidized housing (tenure, salary, position?). Aassuming not everyone who opted to live in subsidized housing would get it, how would one equitably determine how long a teacher could live in subsidized housing before being forced to move out? If teachers once in would never be forced out, how would new teachers get to partake in this effective lottery?
3) It keeps money in the hands of the school district which can at its leisure decide to decrease subsidies, raise the bar for qualifying for subsidized housing, or phase out the program altogether. At the end of the day, it's the teachers paying off the mortgage and reaping none of the equity.
Instead of this horrible idea, teacher salaries should raise commensurately and uniformly so that all teachers working in the district stand to benefit, instead of selecting the few lucky individuals to reap this subsidized windfall lottery. It's the only way to ensure accountability with the school's administration and to ensure that all parties benefit equally.
Old Mountain View
on May 15, 2016 at 10:50 pm
on May 15, 2016 at 10:50 pm
Let's not waste our money housing short-timers verging on obsolescence -- let's put our money on the future, for the sake of our children.
With the advent of viable/successful/low-cost Artificial Intelligences (Watson, Deep Mind, AlphaGo, Siri, Uber, etc) we will NOT be employing humans in the role of "classroom teachers" much longer. Seems to me (at least for elementary and high school levels) these positions will be eliminated by technology within the next 20 years -- like elevator operators and (soon) taxi drivers.
Listen and understand: when AI units reign over our classrooms -- each one with the knowledge of 100 Kahn Academy's in their positronic brains -- they will not need housing: they absolutely will not stop, ever, until our children are fully educated.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 16, 2016 at 9:40 am
on May 16, 2016 at 9:40 am
Ah, I see! If we cannot nail down the entire Eduction Problem for the next 100 years, then we should do absolutely nothing to keep qualfied teachers employed in our school district!
Grow up people. Every single excellent teacher that stays employed here affects the potential success (or failure) of our future generation. A very tiny investment for a very large return. The only arguments against this are from people who refuse to pay for any community projects anyway. Ignore them!
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 16, 2016 at 11:00 am
Registered user
on May 16, 2016 at 11:00 am
Uh, not true. I frequently give my time and money to projects and programs that benefit the community as do many others that are against this program. The problem is that many people are tires of being treated like piggy banks by their Government that they can raid at will. If you want to invest YOUR money, no one will stop you. But you don't have the right to tell us how to invest ours. And with the thousands of "tiny" investments we are being asked to pay for, it is adding up to real money!
Lastly, who said anything about nailing down education for the next 100 years? I'd be happy to see something that deals with the next year or two. The US ranks 5th in Education spending, yet ranks in the mid 20's for math, reading and science.
Instead of attacking the messengers, perhaps it would be better to redirect all that energy into fixing the problem. It isn't more money that's needed, its a better more efficient system.
Jim Neal
Old Mountain View
another community
on May 16, 2016 at 12:16 pm
on May 16, 2016 at 12:16 pm
Housing project for teachers is a very bad idea. It is too expensive, and a permanent liability to the school district. What happens if the teacher quit? Is it unfair to other teachers who don't get it? and so on.
The school district can issue rent vouchers instead. The vouchers are to be redeemable in any rental units to subsidize for portions of rent. It's like a coupon for housing.
If the teacher quit there will be no vouchers for him/her. But he/she can still live in the unit if that suits one's personal needs. Vouchers can be reduced or eliminated if housing market cools down, or school is short on financial resources.
There is no capital needed to invest in building anything, no permanent liability. The money saved can sponsor many more teachers.
Registered user
Whisman Station
on May 16, 2016 at 5:18 pm
Registered user
on May 16, 2016 at 5:18 pm
A temporary solution would be putting the school buildings to good use as temporary housing! The cafeteria would provide meals, the auditoriums would provide sleeping and classrooms could be reserved for the teachers who teach in them.
That idea is how nursing or retirement homes already do for people who live in them.
As for replacing teachers with teaching machines, that is a distinct possibility that cannot be ruled out. China is already working on this project for the massive amounts of people with ethic differences. China has already started on an android hooked up to a computer that actually talks and has human facial expressions. Since EVERYONE can build a supercomputer these days, applying AI to create a " teaching machine " is not that far away.
another community
on May 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm
on May 18, 2016 at 7:21 pm
I cannot imagine anything worse than colleagues living together in close proximity. There needs to be a separation of home and work life. I like my colleagues very much, but I also like leaving my work life at work. Just pay teachers more, and they can decide how to spend the money that would have been spent on teacher housing.
As many have pointed out, how do you tax a benefit that only some staff get? How do you ensure equality?
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 18, 2016 at 11:23 pm
on May 18, 2016 at 11:23 pm
I don't have kids. I will never have kids. So why should I fund your salary to teach someone else's kids?
Having government owned housing to allow important members of the community the ability to live in it is a great solution. Handing out extra money to teachers is wasteful. They will likely not use that money to stay locally anyway. Anyone who suggests rent vouchers is a landlord shill.
another community
on May 19, 2016 at 2:31 pm
on May 19, 2016 at 2:31 pm
@@MV Teacher, who is going to support your retirement? The kids of today are the workforce of tomorrow. Their productivity supports your well being when you retire.
Those who don't have kids should pay *more* tax, not less, because they will be living off other people's kids.