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

31–40 of 111 posts

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

#31

Post by glibgil »

getemback wrote: post #18
greglindahl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Brisbane, California is not a "small town"

Brisbane is a small town. It is dense, not sprawling. It has a town square and a handful of shops. It has schools. It is surrounded by empty space on all sides. It is in a canyon of San Bruno Mountain on three sides and surround by bay water and rail yards on the north side. You don't know what you are talking about

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

#32

Post by maxerickson »

billhathaway wrote: post #9

How could the net increase in tax revenue only be $1M? At 4400 units, that would be only be $227 per unit per year. While prop 13 limits increases, for new units, they would be assessed at current value.

In the report, the $1 million is a fiscal surplus. So it factors in the cost of providing services.

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

#33

Post by getemback »

vecinu wrote: post #24
getemback wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If you look at your link, you will see the address is (142 Elderberry Ln, Brisbane, CA 94005). Looking at the map ( https://goo.gl/maps/7kvttaK8z7F2 ), it's not even in Brisbane proper, so I think you're wrong about your assessment. I have been to Brisbane, the number of large McMansions is very tiny.

This one is. It almost seems designed to trick a machine learning classifier into classifying it as a warehouse or something.

Point it the existing built environment of Brisbane, CA is not worth preserving. Its car-dependent nature is a menace to the region.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6916572,-122.4087356,3a,90y,...

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

#34

Post by glibgil »

aphextron wrote: post #13
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.

Zurich is not located on a 7 mile wide peninsula.

This is some strange SF manifest destiny argument

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

#35

Post by patmcguire »

jorams wrote: post #23
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…

> if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city ? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?

Residents have kids who go to school, they need hospitals, they take up services. That million dollars a year net is only going to go down over time as things get more expensive and the real estate taxes stay the same. Eventually they'll lose money.

Cities don't have to make money they just have to not lose it.

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

#36

Post by kafkaesq »

cylinder wrote: post #7
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…

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.

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

Nothing weird about that situation at all. In fact it's the way much of planet is organized.

These people are assholes.

Nothing of the sort. They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community.

And it's exactly the kind of completely gratuitous negativity (project by outsiders, who otherwise couldn't begin to care what goes on in their town), exemplified above, which shores up this instinct that many of them have to protect what they have. Because they know that you're definitely not concerned about what impact projects like these will have on their quality of life and long-term fiscal interests.

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

#37

Post by getemback »

glibgil wrote: post #31
getemback wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Brisbane, California is not a "small town" Brisbane is a small town. It is dense, not sprawling. It has a town square and a handful of shops. It has schools. It is surrounded by empty space on all sides. It is in a canyon of San Bruno Mountain on three sides and surround by bay water and rail yards on the north side. You don't know what you are talking about

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6888189,-122.4091851,410a,35...

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

#38

Post by Mz »

It might be easier for residents and elected officials to welcome growth if the city received more tax dollars for doing so. But the opposite is true.

Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.

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 — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.

I have suggested before that tax incentives are part of why we have this issue. This isn't exactly the way I figured it was screwing things up, but it is evidence that tax structures are part of the problem.

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

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

getemback wrote: post #4
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…

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?

Let's assume that the 4400 homes are $1 million each; that will be $4.4 billion in property value; property tax (aside from that dedicated to approved bonds) is fixed at 1%, so with million dollar homes it would gross $44 million in property taxes. So, it'd take much more expensive homes to net around $50 million for the city, and while I don't see a clear estimate of the price of the homes, the fact that the article points to affordability as an issue addressed suggest the plan isn't to build million-dollar homes.

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

#40

Post by epistasis »

kafkaesq wrote: post #36
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.

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. Nothing weird about that situation at all. In fact it's the way much of planet is organized. These people are assholes. Nothing of the sort. They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community. And it's exactly the kind of completely gratuitous negativity (project…

>They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community.

No, they're just looking out for themselves. The community is hurt by their greed for massively inflated property values, low taxes, and keeping the younger generation from living the lives they want.

If that makes me negative, fine. But if they are white-washing their behavior by pretending to be concerned for "the community" when really they only care about themselves, yes, that is the very definition of asshole.

Post reply on HN