|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Much Ado over ADUs
There has been much change in the approval process for ADUs in California, but two things remain the same: The cost to build and connect the ADU are at peninsula “market rate,” and the value of the construction (at $500 per foot) is added to the applicant’s tax liability.
Here’s a recent local example. A 560-square-foot ADU built with a “low cost” contractor cost $250,000; modular units end up about the same. That includes extending utilities to the back of the lot, adding fire sprinklers, and adding solar (the last two by city mandate). Budget about $120,000 more for design fees, appliances, agency permits and fees, etc. The added taxes are $2,800/year or more ($1,400 every six months). With an experienced, efficient architect, it took two months to design, two months to permit and nine months to build, including the various inspections. The owner spent about 1,600 hours in support of the project, unpaid.
This example was rented out at $2,300/month, the owner pays utilities and gardener. If the cost of borrowing $370,000 is $2,000/month, and utilities, insurance and county taxes add $600/month, this is not positive cash flow for the home owner. Maybe the tax bump will change some day?
I hope home owners build ADUs — this is still the best way outside of nonprofit “projects” that we can add hundreds of small, affordable homes on the Peninsula. Importantly, it should add to the property value. And of course it’s there for the parents or re-nesters.
Zoning laws no longer hold back ADU approvals, but building regulations and county taxes are not helping out.
Henry Riggs
Callie Lane, Menlo Park
The public good of TK
I sympathize with quality preschools whose programs are being impacted by TK; but find it sad some of the early childhood educators featured in this article don’t recognize more the public good TK represents. While universal TK might help underserved children the most, all California kids will benefit in Kindergarten and beyondwhen more of their Kindergarten classmates have had some experience with caring teachers, interactions with peers, exposure to English, etc. We talk a lot in our community about how to reduce educational achievement gaps in older children (e.g. middle school math, college readiness, etc.) — one of the most impactful ways to do this is to invest in children in their early years when the most rapid and profound brain development is happening (economists have been arguing this for years).
And, while it might be true that some TK classrooms have less “play” that some preschool classrooms, of course it depends on the individual program/classroom. According to the California Department of Education’s website there is no minimum time period for math instruction in TK, for example. Experts in this State Department designed TK to support children’s emotional, social, and developmental needs and with concrete goals such as fostering positive child-teacher relationships — similarly to quality preschool programs. Surely the implementation in every TK classroom will not be perfect — that is true of kindergarten and preschool classrooms as well; but there is no reason to think that Play-Doh, singing, or learning through play would not be incorporated into a TK classroom.
Research on TK shows it really has the potential to lift up thousands of children who would otherwise not have these types of learning — and playing — experiences at age four. So, instead of “just saying no” to TK; it would be more directly helpful to a larger number of children, and indirectly for everyone in the community, for early-childhood educators to advocate for the types of learning/structure/play they want to see in these classrooms. Preschool has only been accessible to Californian children whose parents could afford it, let’s celebrate accessibility for all 4-year-olds!
Karinna Hurley Alma Street, Palo Alto
Land development should address local inequities
The article on the state of the “real” royal-estate in San Mateo County serves to highlight the real despicable inequities within this county. Considering the statewide issues of unhoused populations, and unaffordable housing for lower and middle class ordinary folk — people who work and live (or are forced to commute long distances) in this and surrounding counties (Santa Clara and San Francisco.) Public educators/front line working class folk are only a few but essential (undervalued) parts of this local and regional economy; they are examples of those who will likely never come close to earning $500,000 per year.
In my opinion this “camino real” traversed these days in this time, by all, is not solely for nouveau royalty and does not serve community/ies and their inherent value in general very well. The state, counties, regions, municipalities, urban planners, developers, especially in “real” estate, might well factor this into consideration within the scope of their short/mid and long range goals and objectives and bottom line, as populations continue to grow, ebb and flow in and out the San Francisco Bay Area.
As with many things, Newton was basically correct, what goes up must come down. The hope is that there is more of a balance in the plan and the process for land development, and the allocation of vast resources for all residents in this “pristinely prized” environment as it evolves.
Michel Bochow Gellert Boulevard, Palo Alto
Change of plans: Research campus to leave Menlo Park, make way for more housingJune 12, 2026 6:46 pm
Iranian hackers claim access to Cal Water customer data, ability to shut off serviceJune 15, 2026 1:22 pm
You might want to fix the typo in your headline.