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

91–100 of 111 posts

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

#91

Post by oneshot908 »

erentz wrote: post #89
oneshot908 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like they want to max out tax revenue and that's their right. Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? All this developer has to do is make building that housing a no-brainer for Brisbane, but I suspect in doing so the profitability plummets or somebody would have already done th…

> Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? Yes. The sprawling office parks and snakey 8 lane roads of northern San Jose are a fucking miserable mess. But the concentration of offices and condos in downtown San Jose is probably the only thing resembling sensible urban planning in the whole Sou…

OK, but for me, Brisbane is the Brigadoon of the Bay Area. I don't see why we should have any say whatsoever in how they decide to develop what is theirs. Make it a win/win for them or GTFO IMO.

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

#92

Post by maxscam »

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.

I grew up here, it was a very ideal place for families. More suburban than sf (population of less than 5k) but didnt feel like sprawl either. We played in the streets, can't do that in most of sf. Although to be fair this area theyre talking about isnt really in brisbane anyway, its on a industrial stretch.

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

#93

Post by closeparen »

true_religion wrote: post #70
jimbobob wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ... the…

You don't get to criticize us for being temporary when it is the policies you write that force us out.

And yes, if for some reason millions of people wanted to move to Wisconsin, I'd rather they built on the site of my family home than lived in RVs and mega-commuted. People's well being matters more than the sentimental value of manufactured goods.

I didn't win the genetic lottery to be born in a place with economic opportunity. But I am an American, and since we live in America and not 14th century feudal Europe, I am not obligated to stay put.

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

#94

Post by DrScump »

erentz wrote: post #89
oneshot908 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like they want to max out tax revenue and that's their right. Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? All this developer has to do is make building that housing a no-brainer for Brisbane, but I suspect in doing so the profitability plummets or somebody would have already done th…

> Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? Yes. The sprawling office parks and snakey 8 lane roads of northern San Jose are a fucking miserable mess. But the concentration of offices and condos in downtown San Jose is probably the only thing resembling sensible urban planning in the whole Sou…

  sensible urban planning
Downtown San Jose? Are you serious?

Try walking downtown on a typical evening. Say, Market to 6th, Santa Clara St. to, say, Reed. Feel the vibe. Research how many businesses (restaurants, bars, clubs, shops) have failed there even during the "recovery".

Then do the same in downtown Santa Clara. Then Willow Glen (Lincoln Ave). Then Mountain View (Castro St.). Then Palo Alto (University Ave). And Menlo Park. Even Redwood City.

Even ignoring that modern downtown San Jose is "planned" and the others "unplanned": if San Jose is "sensible" urban planning, then give me unplanned any day.

I spent 50+ evenings a year downtown for over a 20-year span. Now, I avoid it except for SOMA First Fridays.

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

#95

Post by ericd »

s73ver wrote: post #64
kqr2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can phase it in over time, and you can give a property tax exemption to the elderly. The current structure is a large windfall for a lot of people that it wasn't meant to be a windfall for.

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

#96

Post by Animats »

Animats wrote: post #11

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 i…

I just found out that Stanford's "Redwood City campus" is entirely administrative. 35 acres of bureaucrats. 2700 people. "School of Medicine administration. Stanford Libraries and University Archives administration. Business Affairs. Land, Buildings and Real Estate. Human Resources. Residential & Dining Enterprises. Office of Development (i.e. fund-raising). And those are just the off-site administrators. There are more back on the main campus.

Stanford has only 2,180 faculty members.

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

#97

Post by oneshot908 »

DrScump wrote: post #94
erentz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? Yes. The sprawling office parks and snakey 8 lane roads of northern San Jose are a fucking miserable mess. But the concentration of offices and condos in downtown San Jose is probably the only thing resembling sensible urban planning in the whole Sou…

sensible urban planning Downtown San Jose ? Are you serious? Try walking downtown on a typical evening. Say, Market to 6th, Santa Clara St. to, say, Reed. Feel the vibe. Research how many businesses (restaurants, bars, clubs, shops) have failed there even during the "recovery". Then do the same in downtown Santa Clara. Then Willow Glen (Lincoln Ave). Then Mountain View (Castro St.). Then Palo Alto (University Ave). A…

It's funny, because you're dead-on about this IMO. Individual cities responding individually to the commuter calamity of the South Bay have done a better job than any high-fallutin' 20-year plan could have.

As for downtown San Jose, it looks like it's about to get a lot better if Google follows through on building a campus there. Meanwhile in my hometown of Santa Cruz, it's bums, needles, and out of business signs thanks to our local rabidly anti-growth government. I'm pinning my hopes on Amazon eventually expanding its downtown footprint as the only way possible way out of the trap the place constructed for itself.

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

#98

Post by erentz »

DrScump wrote: post #94
erentz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? Yes. The sprawling office parks and snakey 8 lane roads of northern San Jose are a fucking miserable mess. But the concentration of offices and condos in downtown San Jose is probably the only thing resembling sensible urban planning in the whole Sou…

sensible urban planning Downtown San Jose ? Are you serious? Try walking downtown on a typical evening. Say, Market to 6th, Santa Clara St. to, say, Reed. Feel the vibe. Research how many businesses (restaurants, bars, clubs, shops) have failed there even during the "recovery". Then do the same in downtown Santa Clara. Then Willow Glen (Lincoln Ave). Then Mountain View (Castro St.). Then Palo Alto (University Ave). A…

> San Jose is "planned" and the others "unplanned"

I didn't say the others are unplanned. They are entirely planned to stay exactly as they are and constrain growth so that their super wealthy residents can live exactly as they have been for the past twenty years without any change.

> then give me unplanned any day.

Well as said. They are planned to be that way. But sure, I guess if you can afford the $6,000 rents to live there you can have them. But that's not a good vision for the Bay Area, nor a place I particularly want to live even if I could afford it.

> downtown San Jose

I don't disagree with what you say about San Jose. I used to live downtown. Still compared to those other places you mention San Jose actually allows development. And there's a lot more starting to go on there now. Palo Alto is great if you're rich. All the boutiques. And $6000 per month apartments. It has a blue bottle. (But other than that pretty shit options.) Mountain View is an ugly dump of stores that only seem to still exist because they're owned by someone who isn't paying current market rate taxes. And a bunch of ugly out of place buildings at the other edge. But it does have good sushi. Redwood City you mentioned is the place I think is doing a good job from the little I've seen these days, could become a model for the rest of the South Bay. I hope they keep it up.

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

#99

Post by thephyber »

maxerickson wrote: post #32
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.

To expand, city services are more expensive for a resident of a city than an employee, hence the asymmetry of the fiscal surplus numbers.

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

#100

Post by thephyber »

zaroth wrote: post #90

How can 4,400 homes net only $1 million in property taxes? Tell me where I can sign up to pay $227 in annual property taxes!

As mentioned elsewhere, gross is not net. Once you factor in city services costs for those new residents, the net change is far lower than the gross property taxes per new resident.
Post reply on HN