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

61–70 of 111 posts

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

#61

Post by pix64 »

HoppedUpMenace wrote: post #20

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 s…

> 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

They aren't building new houses between old houses...

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

#62

Post by rbanffy »

kafkaesq wrote: post #46
epistasis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> Either way it's for them to assess, not you.

Until the state decides to apply eminent domain so more people can better use the space available.

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

As if anyone had an inalienable right not to have neighbors.

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

#63

Post by rbanffy »

getemback wrote: post #33
vecinu wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,...

I wonder how many self-driving cars live in that house...

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

#64

Post by s73ver »

kqr2 wrote: post #50
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Problem being, a lot of people would get absolutely screwed by that, and end up losing their home. There needs to be a way to fix that, without going back to the original problem Prop 13 was intended to fix, which was people being unable to afford the property tax on homes that they had been living in forever.

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

#65

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> That's not enough of an incentive.

One relatively simple solution is to pass laws that mandate building homes along stores and hotels. Want to build a large hotel and some stores? Need to also build 4,400 affordable houses. And, since we are fixing the world, add to that mandatory investment in clean energy for seawater desalination, because water and energy for those homes will have to come from somewhere.

And I didn't even suggest higher density habitations.

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

#66

Post by getemback »

beamatronic wrote: post #43
bdamm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an outstanding plan.

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

"Reston is a Car-Dependent city" -- https://www.walkscore.com/VA/Reston

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

#67

Post by pizzetta »

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.

But why put the onus on a small village when the city of SF itself is unwilling to allow normal city development & construction. If anyone are assholes, it's the city of SF itself --who, by the way, typically rally behind "we don't want to Manhattanize SF." If SF is unwilling to do their part, why would we expect a small village compensate ofr the city's unwillingness to support development?

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

#68

Post by [deleted] »

kafkaesq wrote: post #46
epistasis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by DanAndersen »

rbanffy wrote: post #62
kafkaesq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Either way it's for them to assess, not you. Until the state decides to apply eminent domain so more people can better use the space available. > As if they have some inalienable right to live in places like Brisbane. As if anyone had an inalienable right not to have neighbors.

With attitudes like this, why wouldn't the existing owners feel their existing way of life is being threatened? Not everyone loves living in a high-density environment, and some people would tend to want their community and home to have the same properties that made it attractive to them in the first place. When you suddenly get an influx of new population that wants to change the character of a community and starts entertaining schemes of forcible land redistribution, how could one not assume that the locals are going to feel like they're being somewhat invaded?

I can see the grievances of both sides on this, but I honestly wish there was more focus on spreading out these 'tech hub' communities to places beyond just the Bay area. There's a certain absurdity to the idea that the tech industry of all industries has this need to clump everyone together into a hyper-concentrated beehive of activity that irrevocably alters the host communities upon which it descends.

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

#70

Post by true_religion »

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.

As an outsider, the discussion of San Fransisco housing seems incredibly polarized.

Are advocates of new housing talking about disenfranchising their parents, grandparents, and older aunts and uncles? Are they actually talking about tearing down their old family homes that they grew up in and putting up apartment complexes instead?

If so then... wow that's a level of forward-thinking that's truly rare.

If not ... then these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

They want whatever district they move to temporarily for jobs to utterly change its character to suit them, at the expense of those already resident there. And yet anything they find sentimental, and all of their families' land assets, will remain safe in their hometowns far-far from San Fransisco.

Post reply on HN