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

41–50 of 111 posts

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

#41

Post by smalley »

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-…

My current favorite local example of this taken to its ridiculous ends is this one: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/internal-affairs-san-j... . Where San Jose and Santa Clara are going back and forth suing each other about who gets to have the businesses and who has to bear the "burden" of having housing.

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

#42

Post by oneshot908 »

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.

The residents of Brisbane get to inhale deeply of the fumes generated by nearby enormous mountains of garbage from SF and the bay area on a daily basis. I understand completely why they'd oppose development. Now I suspect if there were a deal in play to remove the awful stench once and for all, there'd be something in it for them.

Right now, they should drag this out as long and as hard as they can IMO lest they get screwed again. Because if the place didn't smell like a$$ on a daily basis, it would have been discovered and gentrified long ago (I remember checking the place out myself in 2007). It could be a fantastic suburb of SF in a world where win/win usually triumphed over I got mine so @#$% you. But that's not how this area works in my experience.

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

#43

Post by beamatronic »

bdamm wrote: post #28
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 is an outstanding plan.

If you want to see a well planned community check out Reston, VA

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

#44

Post by dragonwriter »

Mz wrote: post #38

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…

Low fixed property taxes means cities rely on sales and use tax, which means retail is favored and housing disfavored.

Prop 13 ruins everything.

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

#45

Post by mylons »

jimbobob wrote: post #29
mylons wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.

She's not even trying to hide her selfishness. What a lack of empathy.

it reminds me of the mentality of the extreme right and left wing. if they just repeat their rhetoric over and over, and in groups, it gives them a sense of solace that they aren't being inhumane, greedy pigs.

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

#46

Post by kafkaesq »

epistasis wrote: post #40
kafkaesq wrote: post #36

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. 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 t…

The community is hurt by their greed for massively inflated property values, low taxes,

Or maybe they see positive tradeoffs. Either way it's for them to assess, not you.

Keeping the younger generation from living the lives they want.

As if they have some inalienable right to live in places like Brisbane.

If that makes me negative, fine.

I doubt they care what you think, actually.

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

#47

Post by anth1988 »

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 do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”

63 year old said that. How about in honour of the different time we stop bothering to keep the elderly alive. I feel sorry for them for not getting the health care that they need, but it's a different time.

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

#49

Post by anth1988 »

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…

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

Selfish fucking assholes.

> 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) 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 the impact is on their quality of life and long-term fiscal interests.

God damn right I'm not interested in helping them to protect their little bubble. They are a bunch of selfish pricks.

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

#50

Post by kqr2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #44
Mz wrote: post #38

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…

Low fixed property taxes means cities rely on sales and use tax, which means retail is favored and housing disfavored. Prop 13 ruins everything.

Prop 13 is the big elephant in the room. Repealing Prop 13 and rent control would probably align everybody's incentives to keep housing "affordable". Owners would probably welcome higher density housing to help keep property taxes down. Renters would likewise welcome more housing to increase the rental supply.

However, there doesn't really seem to be a way to actually repeal any of these laws.

Post reply on HN