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

Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#91

Post by rtkwe »

tlb wrote: post #80
docker_up wrote: post #48

To all those that say "build more housing" will solve all our problems, I don't think they've actually been looking at the housing markets. All of the new housing in the Bay Area is at a premium price. All of it. There are tens of thousands of condos slated to be built in SF. They are all top of the end condos. They haven't and they won't dent the prices. Building more homes will just let more rich people move to the…

You're mixing up two things. When a lot of new premium housing is built, you might indeed see the reported "average sales price" go up, since there are lots of sales of new fancy new houses. But the price of older housing goes down. Because people who bought a new premium house, therefore did not buy an older house, which reduces demand for older houses. There are lots of nice older (1940-1990) houses in SV that are…

That depends on somehow not having the extra supply on the high luxury end being soaked up by foreign investment parking their money in real estate.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#92

Post by tlb »

rtkwe wrote: post #91
tlb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up two things. When a lot of new premium housing is built, you might indeed see the reported "average sales price" go up, since there are lots of sales of new fancy new houses. But the price of older housing goes down. Because people who bought a new premium house, therefore did not buy an older house, which reduces demand for older houses. There are lots of nice older (1940-1990) houses in SV that are…

That depends on somehow not having the extra supply on the high luxury end being soaked up by foreign investment parking their money in real estate.

Supply and demand works there too. There's a finite amount of people with a finite amount of money they want to invest in US real estate. If you create enough (by $ value) real estate for them to buy, they can't buy any more.

For a city to have its real estate bought as investments can be troublesome, but at least it doesn't increase road traffic. So you can have tall, dense skyscrapers with condos all owned by foreign trusts, without it creating parking or traffic problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development) seems like an example of this.

If you don't create investable condos, then the foreign money buys single family homes that some family could otherwise live happily in.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#93

Post by pcwalton »

jedberg wrote: post #88
pcwalton wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The developer is super shady and is using legal tricks to make themselves tons of money at the expense of the community. The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" only to see Better Cupertino torpedo the whole process out of rage at having to live by poorer neighbors. SB 35 is precisely the "legal trick" that was needed to force bad actors like Cupertino to do their part. > There are plenty of oth…

> The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Furthermore, if you look at their track record, it's terrible. They don't deliver on anything they promise. Did you know that there was supposed to be a park at Main Street? They somehow got the City Council to approve a variance after the project went forw…

> I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans.

Because Better Cupertino refused to work with the developer in any way. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that is operating in bad faith; conspiracy theories and accusations of "corruption" are a hallmark of bad faith debate. The goal was simply a wish to prevent any housing whatsoever from being developed. There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site. Steven Scharf made his intentions very clear when he made a disgusting joke about building a wall around Cupertino and making San Jose pay for it.

There isn't anything more I can say on the topic of Vallco that hasn't been already written by others. Suffice it to say that that the NIMBYism of exclusive suburbs like Cupertino is not a good look to ordinary Californians, which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#95

Post by jedberg »

pcwalton wrote: post #93
jedberg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Furthermore, if you look at their track record, it's terrible. They don't deliver on anything they promise. Did you know that there was supposed to be a park at Main Street? They somehow got the City Council to approve a variance after the project went forw…

> I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Because Better Cupertino refused to work with the developer in any way. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that is operating in bad faith; conspiracy theories and accusations of "corruption" are a hallmark of bad faith debate. The goal was simply a wish to prevent any housing whatsoever from being developed.…

I'm the least NIMBY person you will find. I think they should build 30 story towers of housing on that property and make 1/2 of it affordable.

I'm not at all against housing on that site. I think it's critical that we put housing there.

I'm against that developer putting offices on the site that would create a housing deficit.

> There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site

I proposed a tax on the retail to fund the affordable housing.

> which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well.

I'm a huge supporter of SB 50.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#96

Post by mav3rick »

erentz wrote: post #49
chelmzy wrote: post #8

I understand the people that have been living there since before the boom. But what about the security guard and other such people that moved there knowing they would need to live in a van? There's 100s of cities to choose from so its not necessary to put yourself through that.

Moving away from your home where all your friends and family and network are is actually an incredibly difficult thing to do. These things are very valuable to a lot of people.

But they knew the consequences ? The guard says she wants to save more and doesn't want to live in an apartment for that reason.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#97

Post by mav3rick »

falcolas wrote: post #65
hedora wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that they put their campus where it could be supported by the local city, but the city refuses to do so, then complains. Two regional train systems have a major station a mile or so from google hq. Three freeways intersect near there as well. There is also a bus system that should be able to service local trips. Google HQ was built by SGI in the 90s so Mountain View has had 20 years to increase the capac…

Any changes to a city are going to occur over the timespan of decades. Any company that comes into a city that can't support them now is doing their employees (and company) a disservice. > have repeatedly chosen not to And why has Google done nothing in response to that then? The city has gotten accustomed to Google always being there, no matter what the city does . It's up to Google to fix that for the sake of their…

The city doesn't let Google do anything either.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#99

Post by kqr2 »

chasingthewind wrote: post #39
conanbatt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Henry George has better land value models. I truly believe california has it all wrong talking about housing: people asking for more construction don't understand what is going on when they campaign for that, and people that complaing about boards also dont understand it. California does not need housing reform, it needs tax reform.

I became interested in Georgist tax models a few years ago but at one point I came across something that didn't seem to be Georgist exactly but perhaps a later modification that seemed terrifying. The idea was that you were responsible to tell the tax authority what the taxable value of your land was. The catch was that anyone could come and (forcibly?) purchase the land at that price. It struck me as an incredibly d…

This was a "self enforcing property tax" implemented by the Greeks:

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/self-enforcin...

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#100

Post by DuskStar »

tlb wrote: post #77
galfarragem wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best leadership solution - in open source at least - seems to be a BDFL..

It works in open source for a decade or two. Cities need continuity over much longer time horizons.

Sounds like a reason to invest in immortality research to me!
Post reply on HN