|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Ravenswood City School District board is expected to approve a contract with a developer this week to build dense housing on the site of the former James Flood Magnet School, moving forward on a project that has been the center of controversy among local residents.
The agreement with Alliant Strategic Development specifies that the project would have 80 to 90 affordable rental units, with priority for teachers and school staff, adding homes to a location that has been vacant for more than a decade. The proposed agreement includes a 90-year ground lease, with the Ravenswood district retaining ownership of the land.
If built, district officials say the housing project would generate between $300,000 to $500,000 in revenue each year, which can be used to pay for school services in a high-needs district.
The development of the former school site at 2037 Pulgas Ave. has been fraught with political controversy, as many neighbors and the school district have been at odds over the number of units to be built. The debate led to the controversial Measure V ballot initiative in Menlo Park last year, which sought to put all rezoning of single-family lots including the Flood School site to a citywide vote.
Measure V was soundly defeated in the November 2022 election but received its highest level of support in the precincts surrounding Flood School.
William Eger, chief business officer of the Ravenswood City School District, said that 85% of its staff that responded to a survey would be eligible for and interested in affordable housing operated by the district.
School district officials have weighed adding a second entrance to the site, which some nearby residents have requested as a way to manage traffic from the planned apartment complex. But school board members said it would be too expensive for the district to add to the project without some help. Instead, board members said that they would reach out to the city of Menlo Park or San Mateo County for additional funding.
“(The second entrance) is something that I know that we financially can’t afford to do because we do want to bring in … money for our budget, in order to continue to pay our teacher salaries and keep them in the county,” said Trustee Jenny Varghese Bloom. “Hopefully the city and the county will also continue to pursue that second entrance.”
Board members directed staff to draft a letter to seek outside funding an extra entrance.
The Ravenswood City School District Board is set to vote on the agreement at the meeting on Thursday, March 9.
It is imperative to have a second entrance to the proposed project for the safety of all concerned.
When Flood School was there, teachers accessed the site through Flood Park. One way in, one way out for a multi story complex on a dead end street makes no sense. A second entrance/exit is necessary. What happened to Ray Mueller’s proposal to divide the complex into 2 entry/exit points?
I always refer back to the quote in one of the original articles about this project where a teacher said “it would change my life.” This project is so important, so valuable and so needed. We have to support the teachers and the staff that keep our youth, educated and inspired. We have to all support “housing that keeps our communities together.” We should all want that for everyone who wants and chooses to live here.
MPMom writes:
“What happened to Ray Mueller’s proposal to divide the complex into 2 entry/exit points?”
The compromise proposal was rejected by the measure’s organizers. Instead they decided to bring the measure to the ballot, where is was defeated.
Those who want to renew the compromise proposal should reach out to Menlo Park City Councilmembers to see if they will support it and pay for the second entrance. Mueller is obviously no longer on the City Council to advocate for it.
Thanks for the history reminder @friendly reader. I see as important that we try to mitigate traffic issues due to the project – a second entrance makes sense.
I hope that the neighbors who claimed to be so disenfranchised that the forced us to spend almost $500k on the failed Measure M will now do the hard work of participating in the forthcoming review of this project.
“I hope that the neighbors who claimed to be so disenfranchised that the forced us to spend almost $500k on the failed Measure M will now do the hard work of participating in the forthcoming review of this project.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. No one ever wants to do the hard work, they would rather just complain.
I highly recommend everyone to view in Street View in Google Maps 321 Sheridan Drive and adjacent streets (link below).
https://www.google.com/maps/place/321+Sheridan+Dr,+Menlo+Park,+CA+94025/@37.4773956,-122.1713132,3a,75y,107.21h,70.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCBEiHVSkBaSewlEXcMyLjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x808fbcb25228842f:0xa76b819670bb94ca!2s321+Sheridan+Dr,+Menlo+Park,+CA+94025!3b1!8m2!3d37.4775102!4d-122.1708735!3m4!1s0x808fbcb25228842f:0xa76b819670bb94ca!8m2!3d37.4775102!4d-122.1708735
I very much feel for the residents of this neighborhood who in my opinion are being completely screwed over by a City Council that is more concerned about personal agendas and future residents than their current residents. I challenge anyone who lives in a neighborhood like this to sign up to have an 80-90 apartment building plunked down next door. I wish the residents of Districts 4 & 3 who elected Betsy Nash and Jen Wolosin were so lucky.
This is not just a Suburban Park problem, this is a Menlo Park problem. How many more Suburban Parks will it take for Menlo Park to wake up and realize what the current City Council and specifically Council Members Nash and Wolosin are doing to our town, changes that will not be able to be reversed.
This is a terrible idea! The problem is that, this is a zoned “single family” neighborhood! There is no way that the addition of 90 apartment units will not dramatically impact the traffic in the neighborhood. The reason measure V failed was that the opponents raised $500,000 from developers and the supporters could only raise $12,000 from locals/supporters! Completely upside down from the notion that local people should deal with local issues.
Concerned resident:
The voters of MP voted and decided they didn’t have a problem with it. In fact, voter turnout to vote on V was much higher than typically occurs in a local election.
The concerned residents now have the opportunity to PARTICIPATE in the review of this project by the Planning Commission and the city council.
It will be interesting to see what arguments they bring to the table. Clearly simply screaming “single family, single family” will not work. Thanks to the vote on Measure V that is no longer a magic protection.
I completely agree with concerned resident above. The developers contributed $500K to defeat Prop V!
Measure V was defeated by the voters who looked at the arguments and decided that providing special treatment to one neighborhood was not in the best interest of the larger community.
The proponents of Measure V were warned in advance that their measure would fail but they ignored that advice.
The way I see it, the defeat of Measure V was only a symptom. The issue is that Menlo Park’s Planning Commission and City Council have been essentially overtaken by pro-development, pro-densification organizations and individuals. District elections have enabled these efforts as did the City Council (Nash, Wolosin, and Taylor) appointing a pro-urbanization Council Member rather than allowing District 5 to choose their own candidate.
Measure V was the result of residents, particularly homeowners, correctly not trusting the current City Council to do the right thing. The current Planning Commissions and City Council are recklessly looking to change Menlo into a dense, apartment-filled city. They are not looking to protect the neighborhoods, schools, and open spaces that attracted so many homeowners and families.
“The ballot measure was defeated by a large margin, with 61.8% voting against it citywide.”
Given this outcome the planning commission can reasonably assume that preserving single family zoning on the Ravenswood site should not be an overriding consideration and that the broader interests of the community should take priority in deciding how best to develop this project.
@Peter Carpenter: if defeating Measure V was such a self-evident good idea, why would you have to spend $500K (vs. $12K from supporters) to defeat it?
It looks like monied interests won…yet again.
Another way to look at the “No on V” $500,000 investment..
Measure V lost by 3008 votes (7860 Nays vs 4852 Yeas).
So @$500,000 invested, it cost the Nay faction $166 for every additional Nay vote to win.
“if defeating Measure V was such a self-evident good idea, why would you have to spend $500K (vs. $12K from supporters) to defeat it?”
Because Measure V was such a self evidently bad way to make zoning decisions that it was important that the voters be made well aware of the threat that Measure V created to having our elected and appointed officials being able to make proper community based zoning decisions. In the real world very few voters were well informed about how, and how well, the current zoning process works and those of us intimately familiar with that process could not afford to allow ignorance to prevail.
@MP Father, Boy, have you got things wrong ! Measure V’s landslide-sized defeat showed that the council got things very right and correctly exercised the judgement of a majority of residents, instead of appeasing a very vocal, and uncompromising minority. You sound like Trump with your “stolen council votes” accusations. Maybe you should stop being a “denier” and just get on with constructively helping guide this city-resident-supported project to meet the needs of the whole community.
Of course there is no accommodations for the concerns of the existing neighborhood. There never was going to be any. William Eger said as much during the every meeting, and our council member Combs kept waffling between “hoping” something would happen and “not my problem.” Our city council cares more about dense housing everywhere than current tax paying residents. I hope the local residents can find ways to delay this project for years to come.
@Kevin, not sure I would call 60% a “landslide” especially given the record contributions from housing orgs, county orgs, developers, and realtors. Measure V was of course flawed but it was a reaction to the lack of trust in the City Council.
“Stolen…votes”? You actually have to hold an election to have it stolen.
If “denier” means being an advocate for current homeowners and families who are actually paying property taxes and are looking to preserve the peacefulness, safety, and schools of Menlo Park that they bought into, then yes, you can call me a denier.
If you are currently a homeowner and live in a quiet neighborhood like Suburban Park with its narrow streets, I challenge you to accept a 90-unit apartment building being constructed on your street. The current mindset of build and densify at all costs and prioritizing future residents over current residents doesn’t sit well with many of us.
The vast majority of the residents are not aware that the Planning Commission and City Council are targeting to use rezoning to increase the number of housing units by 50% without assessment of the impact to financials, traffic, city infrastructure, nor schools. I appreciate the Almanac reporting and providing this forum but we need to do more to educate the community on the Housing Element. Expecting busy families to wade through a 1300-page document is not realistic.
“Expecting busy families to wade through a 1300-page document is not realistic.”
Guess what? That’s what being involved in what happens with and to your community means. Do I want to spend my time reading 1300 pages? No. But if I want the information, UNFILTERED, that is what is required of me in order to cast an educated, informed vote. If you get the information that’s in those 1300 pages from any where other than those 1300 pages, you will be getting information passed through someone else’s filter and thus skewed. And if you cast a vote based on the filtered information you are not casting an educated, informed vote. You are casting a vote that someone else wants you to cast. Democracy is hard work. But it’s worth the work.
Someone please describe the second access into the former Flood School site. A second access will not be through Flood Park.
https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/07/24/guest-opinion-we-support-the-flood-school-housing-compromise
“Based on the mediation efforts led by Council member Drew Combs, Mueller proposed the following:
• The city of Menlo Park would work with Caltrans and LifeMoves to open an additional access road to the site from Van Buren Road
• Ravenswood would install a removable physical barrier that halves the site, allocating vehicle traffic from the site to two entrances. (For the Suburban Park community, this would mean at rush hour there would be one additional car every 3.5 minutes.)”
And what traffic is Haven House, owned by Life Moves, and the Flood Triangle neighborhood going to get? Flood School has never connected to any neighborhood except Suburban Park.
Is a physical barrier going to be part of the design? The cost of a physical barrier is paid by who?
Have no fear, Peter Carpenter, the residents of Suburban Park will attempt to voice their concerns again during this part of the process. We’ll speak into the open mic. We’ll write letters to city council members. We’ll submit Op/Ed pieces. You and I both know that it will stop nothing. The city needs it to happen, and it will happen. Not enough Menlo Park residents outside the impacted traffic area care enough to stop it. Also, there are enough people like you who believe (or maybe pretend to believe) that a 90 unit apartment building will produce 1 extra car every 3.5 minutes during rush hour. That’s 17 car trips, some of which would be round trips dropping off a kid to school. So we think, what 10-12 residents will drive during rush hour? P.T. Barnum would have a tough time selling that ludicrous a statistic.
“You and I both know that it will stop nothing.”
Don’t speak for me!
I am confident that the planning commission and the council will listen careful and adjust the project as needed to meet the needs of the entire community.
What won’t happen is that Suburban Park will be forever protected from any change – except of course the massive expansion of the existing single family homes in Suburban Park that is happening every day.
What is the traffic impact of those massive expansions of the existing single family homes?
What massive expansion are you talking about in Suburban park? Do you mean remodeling of homes? There have been no newly zoned homes in the 16 years I’ve lived here? That’s a very strange and misleading question.
“What massive expansion are you talking about in Suburban park?”
Just drive around and look at all the second story additions and how many cars are parked in those driveways and on the street. When the original homes were built they were all single story. I estimate that there has been a 40% increase in the square footage in Suburban Park as the result of these expansions.
In the two years I lived in Suburban Park I saw over a dozen new second floor additions.
40% = massive.
What is the traffic impact of those massive expansions of the existing single family homes?
Again, just a very odd attempt at a comparison. Are you implying that when somebody builds a second story or adds a room (on a 1950s era 2 bed/1 bath) that they somehow rent out the top floor to another family? I suppose that some folks may have moved in a parent or grandparent, but I’d guess the traffic impact was negligible. It really has nothing to do with the challenge that Suburban Park is going to face when the traffic from 90 units is filtered through the only planned entrance.
A lot of those Suburban Park expansions were because the families had children who grew up and they needed/wanted more space. And most of those children became drivers and added new cars. Others were done to increase the sale value of the home so that it could attract a larger family – with more cars. All of these expansions added new bedrooms and new bedrooms accommodate more people.
Again, a simple question “What is the traffic impact of those massive expansions of the existing single family homes?”
Peter this is a silly move the goalposts kind of question. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to do, but it’s bizarre. By the way, when kids grow up and become drivers, they usually end up driving whether the parents added another room or another floor or kept the house as is. Did your children move away from home when they got their drivers license in high school? From my best guess as a resident, outside of small fluctuations, I doubt the census of people living in this neighborhood has changed much over the 16 years I’ve lived here. Therefore, I doubt that remodeling of homes has created more traffic. If you have some data to share, share it. I’m done trying to figure out this non sequitur topic. I’m focused on the actual issue at hand, which is how I’m going to try to convince anybody who will listen that this project needs at least two entrances.
@Peter Carpenter, while I respect your posts, you have to admit that “Massive Expansion” is a stretch :-). The avg family size in America has shrunk since 1950 from ~3.5 to ~2.6 today while the avg home has grown from ~900sf to ~2,500sf.
My guess is that if we actually took MP homeowners to the site and showed them the neighborhood, there would be a general out-roar. Most MP residents have no idea about this project nor the recent actions of the City Council.
Why shouldn’t all traffic from this massive housing development be routed via Van Buren and Bay rather than this quiet, peaceful neighborhood of residential homes on narrow streets?
@MP Father, a 61/39% loss is indeed a landslide and a repudiation of both the “reaction to lack of trust in the City Council” plus the misguided notion that Suburban Park somehow lost representation when we moved to “by-district” council system. Especially since the precinct / neighbors opposing the project got out the vote in high numbers and voted over 2:1 against the project. For me, V was flawed in 3 ways –
* I was clearly a response to a specific, popular project masquerading as protection for everyone in the city
* It discriminately protected already-privileged R-1 parts of the city
* It was likely to make it even harder for my kids to live and a buy into Menlo Park in the future, by preventing lower cost, greater density housing.
It didn’t help that some canvassing Measure V backers and widely-distribute flyers touted clearly fallacious claims.
But I’m beyond all that and would like to help mitigate the potential traffic issues that Suburban Park is rightly concerned about. I would like to help rally the whole community to push for a second entrance – just point me in the right direction. But please don’t keep raising you past sour grapes and objections, instead of seeking a reasonable solution.
Kevin hit the nail on the head with:
“…to make it even harder for my kids to live and a buy into Menlo Park in the future, by preventing lower cost, greater density housing”
The current city council wants to build a lot of lower cost, high density housing. In every neighborhood. Why? So Menlo Park is far more affordable. What people fail to see is when that happens all of their property values drop. What do you think a massive apartment building dropped at the end of your street will do to the values in that neighborhood? When enough neighborhoods are devalued then yes, the prices in Menlo will be more affordable. The progressive agenda will be realized at the cost of the current homeowners, and when they figure it out it will be too late.
“Why shouldn’t all traffic from this massive housing development be routed via Van Buren and Bay rather than this quiet, peaceful neighborhood of residential homes on narrow streets?”
Amazing! Now you want ALL the trffic to go thru someone else’s neighborhood. Is there no end to your selfishness?
I’m guessing that’s a rather isolated radical opinion. I believe the project will now be going forward, and that one access point will be through the Hedge Road loop of Menlo Park. With that assumption, I feel strongly that a minimum of two exit/entrances should be required for traffic flow and safety.
Menlo Lifestyle:
The sky isn’t falling and no one will be putting “massive” apartment buildings at the end of anyone’s block. That’s a red herring. Lots can be split in two, nothing else. Two homes can be built where one is. Hardly a “massive apartment building”. Hyperbolic much?
Andrew C:
and if the fire department agrees with you, they will require it. If they require it and the builder and the city refuse, the fire department won’t give their approval and the project won’t be built.
Menlo Voter, maybe you’re new to the topic. The article and nearly all of the comments are related to a plan to place a 90-unit apartment complex on a vacant lot at the end of single family neighborhood street, with only one entrance/exit in the plan. So, no red herring at all. No hyperbole. This is reality.
Looks like the district is formally requesting a second access point from council and/or the county supervisors.
https://www.hiago.app/en/organizations/menlo-park/emails/185990
@Menlo Voter “… no one will be putting “massive” apartment buildings at the end of anyone’s block. … Lots can be split in two, nothing else. Two homes can be built where one is. Hardly a “massive apartment building”. Hyperbolic much?”
Again, this was proposed on two single family merged lots in Palo Alto. 29 units, a density of > 72du/acre. https://sfyimby.com/2021/01/renderings-revealed-for-2239-41-wellesley-street-palo-alto.html
And, yes, such apartments will NOT be part of the current 2023-2031 Housing cycle, and yes, so far SB9-style lot split policies have been predictably feckless everywhere proposed. We said they would be.
And … the state camel’s nose is under the local zoning tent. SB9 failure along with many more failures of “progressive” housing policy will only invite more blame to be put onto local zoning.
Organizations such as SFYIMBY are already contemplating changes to SB9 to fix it. One is to remove “occupancy” requirements. The instant this happens, Belle Haven is gentrified, since many properties there are investment rentals. Other neighborhoods in EPA, the Willows, Fair Oaks etc will be equally open to gentrification pressure from investor owned properties.
Yes, elite single family neighborhoods will always attract the most affluent among us and not split lots or merge parcels.
But.. cities like Menlo Park are building and approving office buildings and increasing job densities like drunken sailors. It leaves the city few options about where to put commensurate housing.
Something must give. State pressure or single family neighborhoods.
You miss the writing on the wall if you don’t see all the huge construction cranes, from Menlo Park to Belmont that are building offices in all the low intensity commercial districts, or if you don’t understand that Developers Agreements give 20 years of entitlement protection to wait out recessions etc and build anew when job markets recover.
Andrew C.
With the one exception of this particular project which is a one off there will be no “massive apartments” being built at the end of anyone’s block. Is that better?
PH:
You’re example is Palo Alto, we’re talking about Menlo Park.
Land values in Menlo Park are going to have to come down significantly before developers will have any interest in building high density housing in MP. Multi-family, multi-story construction costs A LOT more than single family homes. High density, multi-family in MP doesn’t pencil.
I agree with you regarding the stupid approvals of massive amounts of office space.
Menlo Voter:
Since land values in PA are as high as or higher then MP, what pencils in PA would pencil in MP. Creative developers can already find ways to make apts pencil on aggregated single family parcels, but only at considerably higher than SB9 densities.
Developers can always ask for and get a rezoning from a friendly council.
I agree that parcel aggregation will be rare and that apartment conversions will be neighborhood specific, likely taking place in those neighborhoods with lower property values.
Menlo Voter writes: “With the one exception of this particular project which is a one off there will be no “massive apartments” being built at the end of anyone’s block. Is that better?”
Okay, sure if we’re talking about something else than the subject of this article and nearly all of the comments related to the topic at hand in this article. Makes sense to me.
“… if the fire department agrees with you, they will require it. If they require it and the builder and the city refuse, the fire department won’t give their approval and the project won’t be built.”
There will always be a way to block this monstrosity.
“this monstrosity.” is clearly a value judgement.
In the eyes of many the proposed development is a very positive thing.
@MenloLifestyle, a fellow Suburban Park resident penned this thoughtful blog post (https://buckbard.medium.com/i-have-found-the-enemy-and-it-is-me-4f58a8702e84
)back in 2020. Might be worth reading (or rereading, if you’re already familiar with the author and his work). Consider: how might some people read the subtext of your consistent push to prevent a majority-minority district from building housing for their employees in your neighborhood? what about your continually expressed distaste for low-income housing in Menlo Park? Would you say those same things with your name attached? if not, why? etc.
“There will always be a way to block this monstrosity.”
No, in fact this development WILL happen.
I suggest that you devote your energies to helping make the scope and design of this development the best it can be for ALL of the effected parties.
From @PeterCarpenter: “Amazing! Now you want ALL the traffic to go thru someone else’s neighborhood. Is there no end to your selfishness?”
Huh? What the heck are you talking about, @PeterCarpenter? “Selfishness”? I live nowhere near Sheridan nor Suburban Park?
I assume you have seen the size of Sheridan. Van Buren abuts 101 on one side and is about twice the width of Sheridan. To me, there is a BIG difference having the entrance run through both Van Buren and Flood Park (ie, Bay Rd) rather than Sheridan which is a narrow road on a quiet street. Bay and Van Buren are relatively main thoroughfares.
“No, in fact this development WILL happen.”
Maybe so, but there are legal ways to block it for years, maybe decades. Every dollar we spend toward that is money we aren’t losing in property value.
“Every dollar we spend toward that is money we aren’t losing in property value.”
So, in other words you’re just trading dollars. You’ll either lose the money in property value or you’ll spend it on lawyers. So, you’d rather give the same money to lawyers rather then let “riff-raff” (BIG dog whistle) move into your neighborhood. Got it.
“ You’ll either lose the money in property value or you’ll spend it on lawyers.”
I am so glad Menlo Voter. has clearly explained the situation that so many homeowners in Menlo Park have missed. Either defend your investment or let the city council erode it by opening developments to anyone who wants to come. You mention dog whistles and imply racism, so let’s be clear. Menlo Park, or at least my part of it west of 101 and east of Middlefield, is incredibly diverse. My street has literally every race and culture, and all age groups. We all enjoy our neighbors without any bias or prejudice. Suburban Park is a vibrant and diverse community.
Unfortunately, there is a huge swath of our society that does not value education or accomplishment. It has nothing to do with race, or “dog whistles.” The residents of Suburban Park work hard and spend real time and money on their homes and properties and take pride in that accomplishment.
What our city council has decided is that they want to flood Menlo Park with people who don’t believe that they need to earn their way into our community. It may harm your sensibilities but the homeowners who have invested their careers and life savings don’t want to live next to people who simply don’t care about property values or the quality of life we have. We can all drive through EPA or any other low income part of the Bay Area and see the bars on the windows and the broken glass on the streets.
Of course your income doesn’t determine if you’re a contributing member of society. And yet we have these communities that none of us would consider safe or desirable. Why isn’t the RCSD building apartments in EPA? Because none of their staff wants to put their families there. Is that a “dog whistle”?
Let’s get real. No one wants their communities opened to people who don’t care because of some sense of guilt. Menlo Park homeowner will realize this one day. The only real question left is if it will be too late.
Menlo Lifestyle:
Again, this project is a one off. None others like it will get done in MP as it costs too much without government subsidies. And unless the part of the California Constitution that says the government may not subsidize housing that isn’t going to happen either. So the only one hurt in MP are the people of Suburban Park/Flood Triangle. Which is probably why their measure attempting to short circuit the planning process failed.
Now if you are truly concerned about how this project gets done, participate in the planning process. Make your voices heard. Don’t be like the citizens during the DSP process and suddenly wake up when everything is done and decide you don’t like what was done. Over the course of SIX years. A process that wasn’t a secret, by the way.
I’m sure the triad on the council would love to put high density housing all over town, but they can’t and developers aren’t going to do it either as they are in the business of making money and high density housing with land values and construction cost here are a non-starter in MP.
@PeterCarpenter writes, “In the eyes of many the proposed development is a very positive thing.”
I assume the homeowners who support the project do so because 1.) it has been sold somewhat inaccurately as “teacher” housing and 2.) the 90-unit building is not planned for their residential neighborhood. Renters and would-be residents of course want to see property values decreased.
I am hard pressed to think of a homeowner who would oppose affordable housing that is reserved exclusively for employees of the City’s schools, Police Dept, and Fire Protection, and perhaps the city too, if the housing fits into the character of the area in which it was being developed.
What is being proposed, HOWEVER, is 1.) not dedicated to teachers (teachers have first right of refusal but the developer can rent to anyone) and 2.) is a 90-unit apartment building in a very quiet residential neighborhood with exceptionally narrow streets.
Well said @MenloLifestyle: “Either defend your investment or let the city council erode it…”
@menlolifestyle this is exactly the disconnect that NIMBYs don’t normally admit, thank you for acknowledging. Houses are not investments, they are housing, save that for the stock market or crypto and speculate all you want. Artificially creating scarcity is exactly why we are in this position.
@ Michael, Investment and speculation are two very different things.
From the NY Fed: “Housing represents the largest asset owned by most households and is a major means of wealth accumulation, particularly for the middle class.”
For generations, people have saved money for down payments on homes that over time serve as both housing and investments.
Paying rent does not build equity. Paying down a mortgages does.