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

$1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 547 posts

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#121

Post by djakjxnanjak »

ProAm wrote: post #104

> The only solution is changing the zoning laws Or these companies can move. If you take successful STEM related businesses and move them to better area's the talent will follow. There is more than 1 answer to this problem, most people just want to change laws because its easier for them.

No way, no how is Google or any other decent employer going to uproot all their knowledge workers and make them unproductive for the foreseeable future by forcing them to move to another region.

The diaspora from the Bay Area will keep happening the way it has been: at the economic margins. Over time, people outside of tech who aren’t subsidized by prop 13 or rent control will get priced out. There will be a perpetual underclass living in trailers and garages, and the landed aristocracy will be further entrenched.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#122

Post by Shivetya »

quelsolaar wrote: post #26

Here is a buisnes idea Ive been thinking about lately for SF, Hong Kong, NY and other expensive places. Buy a smaller cruise ships and rent a pier to dock it. I found a newly renovated ship with 72 cabins for 5.8 million. With the average rent in SF that ship has paid for itself in 2 years (yes there will be additional costs, but back of a napkin, its a good start). Then buy more ships and stack them. Renovate/remode…

You would run into the same issues which are used to sabotage any new development. I gave a list below, it really isn't meant to be in jest but it sadly does happen.

The only way to get the issue fixed is with a state amendment and even then it would be years in court. It really comes down to two real reasons, they do not want those people in their city and second it makes so much money for all involved the longer nothing changes.

1) you would have to set aside a good number of units for low income residents 2) all work would have to be done by union member organizations 3) you would need to have multiple environmental impact studies to include traffic to and from the location 4) you would also have to appease groups concerned with the affect such a ship would have on naturally occurring views; this has been used against new construction as well as shadows cast 5) Plus a litany of politically associated special interest groups would have to be appeased, this is the primary method of wealth building among the political class.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#123

Post by ChuckMcM »

Personally this class of things really highlights an imbalance for me. Consider that Google runs its own own bus service for employees, and now is building housing for the same.

Traditionally, successful businesses in a region paid taxes, and those taxes were used by the local governments to invest in infrastructure like public transport and urban development.

So in this regard Google usurps the mandate of the community government in favor of using their excess profits to invest in the community that only benefits them (well peripherally it benefits others as Google employees would otherwise burden city services)

What is wrong with that picture is of course that the people without advocates are literally left out in the cold. From the article Google is investing $1B in better housing for their employees and putting $18+3+1.5 ($22.5M toward homelessness which is 2.25% of a billion dollar investment. Contrast that with if Google paid $1B in taxes to the bay area communities where it has facilities, would those governments have the same priorities for those funds?

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#124

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

davidw wrote: post #120
icebraining wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and instead we're stuck in cars commuting. Remote working frees up more time to spend with other people.

If only we had the knowledge to plan cities so that it's possible to live near where you work. Perhaps it sounds crazy, but we could even stack dwelling units on top of one another.

Witchcraft!

Seriously though: It'd be great if apartments were better sound-proofed. My only gripe with apartment living was inadequate privacy and being woken up at 3 AM by a lead-footed upstairs resident.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#126

Post by summerlight »

caymanjim wrote: post #75

It's great that Google wants to increase housing, but is this really going to work? The housing shortage in the Bay Area is not a money problem. If it were possible to build 20,000 houses in the next 20 years, it would absolutely happen without Google's help. The problem with housing there has one simple cause: NIMBYism. SF doesn't want to allow taller buildings and denser housing complexes. It's vastly worse in the…

One of my faint hope in this project is in the fact that most of the development will happen in Google's real estate (if I understand correctly), which is proposed to be combinations of (relatively more) dense residential and commercial area with a more "urban" style planning.

Of course, the zoning law is clearly the root of all housing evil in the Bay area. But in order to fight against it, we need a clear demonstration which can rebut their FUD against a more dense zoning law. I guess Google is trying take that role here.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#127

Post by [deleted] »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

Personally this class of things really highlights an imbalance for me. Consider that Google runs its own own bus service for employees, and now is building housing for the same. Traditionally, successful businesses in a region paid taxes, and those taxes were used by the local governments to invest in infrastructure like public transport and urban development. So in this regard Google usurps the mandate of the commun…

[deleted]

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#128

Post by PaulHoule »

djakjxnanjak wrote: post #121
ProAm wrote: post #104

> The only solution is changing the zoning laws Or these companies can move. If you take successful STEM related businesses and move them to better area's the talent will follow. There is more than 1 answer to this problem, most people just want to change laws because its easier for them.

No way, no how is Google or any other decent employer going to uproot all their knowledge workers and make them unproductive for the foreseeable future by forcing them to move to another region. The diaspora from the Bay Area will keep happening the way it has been: at the economic margins. Over time, people outside of tech who aren’t subsidized by prop 13 or rent control will get priced out. There will be a perpetua…

It's an interesting question.

How much less productive would these workers be if they were moved to Salt Lake City or Henderson, NV or Syracuse, NY?

If you lost 20% of the productivity but could pay 30% less that would be OK, wouldn't it?

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#129

Post by askafriend »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

Personally this class of things really highlights an imbalance for me. Consider that Google runs its own own bus service for employees, and now is building housing for the same. Traditionally, successful businesses in a region paid taxes, and those taxes were used by the local governments to invest in infrastructure like public transport and urban development. So in this regard Google usurps the mandate of the commun…

I can guarantee you that Bay Area politics would destroy the $1b if you gave it to them.

Re: $1B for 20,000 Bay Area homes

#130

Post by refurb »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #42
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #2

Most major tech companies want to hire onsite, when there are plenty of places in this country where you can buy a lot of real estate for much cheaper than the Bay Area. I pay less on my mortgage for a large house with over an acre of land than friends of mine pay for rent for studio apartments in San Francisco or Seattle. Investing $1B into housing in the Bay Area seems nice at the surface, but maybe if we stopped d…

Many people want to live in deaireable areas. There's a reason why your home is cheap.

Sure. Most of that desire is "I want a high paying job". With that goal, they sacrifice things like affordable housing, good schools, crime, congestion, etc.

Don't forget housing is stupid expense in NJ as well. I wouldn't call NJ "desirable".

Post reply on HN