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

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#61

Post by opwieurposiu »

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…

We have a model like that in racing sports, it's called a claiming race. If you enter a $500 claims race you better not spend more than 500 bucks on your car or else someone will buy it out from under you.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15365342/yes-24-hours-of-...

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#62

Post by riskable »

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…

Last I checked, there's physical limits to that kind of growth. According to the textbooks (and history), if you build a zillion super expensive condos in a single area without building an equivalent (or more) amount of low to medium income housing the market will rather quickly self-regulate to reduce the value/price of those luxury condos. It's a bubble.

Ask Miami how it works out. The vacancies in expensive condos are out of control. If it weren't for wealthy foreign investment trying to park their wealth in "safe" places the value of these properties would plummet.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/downtown-miami-has-six-ye...

The bubble will eventually burst and those properties will quickly go bankrupt. Resulting in massive loses to not only other property owners in the area but to the city from tax revenue. Revenue they desperately need to mitigate the effects of global warming.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#63

Post by blotter_paper »

jerkstate wrote: post #56
blotter_paper wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twist: rather than rent out the spaces, just post the parked RVs on Airbnb! Can we divide an RV into a duplex? As long as it still has wheels, how big can an RV get before it's legally an apartment building?

Hey, how about instead of parking, they’re self-driving and they just drive themselves around the block all night? I think we just solved the housing crisis!

Needs more blockchain... with Bee Token! Man, this is all coming together.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#64

Post by notacoward »

falcolas wrote: post #29

A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…

I work for one of those companies, and yes, I do think they should bear part of the blame.

Look at the large tech companies of the past - IBM, DEC, Sun. They had many buildings in many cities all across the country. HQ would be bigger, sometimes there'd be notable clusters of buildings in one area (e.g. Littleton or Marlboro for DEC). Often a certain building/region would have a particular technology or product focus. The thing is, it worked and it even worked even before we had modern communications technology. The reasons those companies declined had nothing to do with the efficiency of their physical work environment.

Google and Facebook and Amazon could do the same thing. Yes, they all have offices elsewhere, often in the same few places (e.g. Boston). But they're still massively overconcentrated in Mountain View, Menlo Park, and one particular part of Seattle. They all literally have money to burn, so they don't care, but it has all kinds of negative effects both on their own workers and on the general economy throughout the area.

It's just inefficient. It's a waste of everybody's money and energy. And that's before we even get into the issue of letting people work remotely. ;)

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#65

Post by falcolas »

hedora wrote: post #57
falcolas wrote: post #29

A lot of sentiment here around "housing is the root of all these problems", but isn't it also the problem of these companies creating offices in communities that can't support them? Given there are a lot of places that offices could be built that could support the employees, I think some of this responsibility lies with the companies who consciously keep their offices in locations that may cause their employees (not…

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 employees.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#66

Post by ppseafield »

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…

There's been a ton of expensive development all over Portland. Condos and apartments in desirable areas, none of it affordable except for rich folks. However, housing prices have stabilized here somewhat. Having more options for rich folks in highly desirable areas means less pressure on housing away from those areas.

Something like 65% of San Fransisco is zoned for single family housing. Some rich people looking to move there will balk at the prices and then look further out, increasing demand in the surrounding areas. With more dense housing in SF, more rich folks who can afford it can live there. Currently the housing supply is so low (because of the zoning) that it forces most rich folks to look elsewhere.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#67

Post by maxmax »

hedora wrote: post #18

This article fails to mention that Mountain View has been blocking improved transit to service the office parks in the area for at least a decade. Starting a private bus service wasn’t Google’s “plan A”. Their preferred approach was to get the city to set up adequate service between the Mountain View train station and surrounding office parks. Although a bit of new housing is finally going in, it’s clearly too little…

If only the company that would benefit from this subsidy would contribute in some way...

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#68

Post by tomjakubowski »

conanbatt wrote: post #40

Just remember when talking about this topic that public employees like Firefighters and policemen make 300k+ https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=firefig...

Those figures (which include benefits) are like, what a junior software engineer costs in the bay area. They don't seem outrageous to me.

I've also seen three entries for "Thomas G McKenzie" on the first few pages of this source.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#69

Post by rabidrat »

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…

That is a fascinating idea, and I think it would work for anything except a primary residence. (How can you tax "I'm 83 and will only leave in a coffin?")

For everything else, particularly investment or rental properties, it seems like a perfect setup. Like bringing the dynamics of the stock market to the property market.

For primary residences, maybe it could be a "half-tax" setup (with actual exemptions for people who would be devastated by moving). So you would actually claim twice the taxable value, and if some developer came along and actually offered the 2x, you would be delighted to take it.

Re: Living In A Van in Google's Backyard

#70

Post by thrwawy-taxman »

maxmax wrote: post #67
hedora wrote: post #18

This article fails to mention that Mountain View has been blocking improved transit to service the office parks in the area for at least a decade. Starting a private bus service wasn’t Google’s “plan A”. Their preferred approach was to get the city to set up adequate service between the Mountain View train station and surrounding office parks. Although a bit of new housing is finally going in, it’s clearly too little…

If only the company that would benefit from this subsidy would contribute in some way...

Like creating demand for thousands of rides per day?
Post reply on HN