Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 111 posts

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#11

Post by Animats »

Redwood City is encouraging apartment construction in a big way. Block after block of buildings in the 8-story range are going up near the railroad station. Meanwhile, Stanford University is building an additional campus about a mile from downtown. The strip-mall area in between is starting to be replaced with larger buildings. It's happening fast; there are construction cranes all over town.

Meanwhile, real estate in SF is dropping in price. The bubble seems to be popping there.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#12

Post by derekdahmer »

cardiffspaceman wrote: post #8
getemback wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers don't make a lot of sense. Wouldn't 4400 homes generate something in the vicinity of 50 million dollars in annual property taxes?

If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million of value of the average home among the 4400. I paged through the report that is linked to the article [1] and it says that about $9.5 million is the city's share of the property tax revenue (table on page 14 of the consultant's report). So there's a gap to be…

I'd imagine the missing $8.5 million of profit goes towards the cost of services for ~10,000 new residents. That's only $850/year/person.

This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27.

[1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#13

Post by aphextron »

getemback wrote: post #10
cylinder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. These people are assholes.

There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.

Zurich is not located on a 7 mile wide peninsula.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#14

Post by djb_hackernews »

getemback wrote: post #3

This has been going around, but even this plan to build 4400 dwellings is still total nonsense, because the plan also includes office space for 15000 people. 15000 jobs requires much more than 4400 dwellings, so this plan will just make things worse. I recommend comparing and contrasting with this plan for Coyote Valley, to see what real urbanism looks like. http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Coyote-…

That plan is from 2003. Not familiar with the area, how did it turn out?

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#15

Post by greglindahl »

getemback wrote: post #10
cylinder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. These people are assholes.

There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#16

Post by getemback »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #14
getemback wrote: post #3

This has been going around, but even this plan to build 4400 dwellings is still total nonsense, because the plan also includes office space for 15000 people. 15000 jobs requires much more than 4400 dwellings, so this plan will just make things worse. I recommend comparing and contrasting with this plan for Coyote Valley, to see what real urbanism looks like. http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Coyote-…

That plan is from 2003. Not familiar with the area, how did it turn out?

It's on ice. Nobody is building anything in Coyote Valley. But it's a wonderful plan.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#17

Post by mylons »

dalfonso wrote: post #2

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually…

the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#18

Post by getemback »

greglindahl wrote: post #15
getemback wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.

I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space.

But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#19

Post by m0llusk »

tj-teej wrote: post #6
dalfonso wrote: post #2

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually…

I think to the planners who make these decisions, helping people is simply a positive externality.

You have things backwards. Planners try to smooth things out or at least prevent disasters.

Most of the existing towns in the SF Bay Area are full of great opportunities for expansion but NIMBYs want their villages to stay the same. That is driven not by planners but reactionaries.

This particular plot of land is a chronically flooded lagoon and swamp which is awkwardly distant from local transit.

It is interesting that instead of being realistic about this land's obviously undesirable nature this article chose instead to print a picture of a nearby plot. The picture shows the former Schlage factory grounds which have undergone extensive remediation and are getting a new high density community built in no small part because of the ongoing efforts of planners to get the highest and best use for that site.

As long as people can't stop lying about what the situation is and what options might be available the chances of a favorable outcome are low.

Re: A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed

#20

Post by HoppedUpMenace »

May not be a popular opinion but I'd have to say that I value the idea of having space between me and my neighbors, so I'm definitely not in favor of maxing out the land for homes to the point where the houses might as well be attached and labeled condos or apartments.

I can understand where the people are coming from in wanting to maintain what they've invested into. I'd hate to see a sudden boom in population and sudden traffic spikes due to the knee jerk reaction of building 100's of more houses in an area that wasn't even planned to support more than what is existing.

People do need housing but people also need to be realistic about where they live and how they plan to keep on living there.

Post reply on HN