A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed(latimes.com)
latimes.com
A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 homes where they may be sorely needed
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html
110 comments
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.
A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport.
Nothing weird about that situation at all. In fact it's the way much of planet is organized.
These people are assholes.
Nothing of the sort. They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community.
And it's exactly the kind of completely gratuitous negativity (project by outsiders, who otherwise couldn't begin to care what goes on in their town), exemplified above, which shores up this instinct that many of them have to protect what they have. Because they know that you're definitely not concerned about what impact projects like these will have on their quality of life and long-term fiscal interests.
Nothing weird about that situation at all. In fact it's the way much of planet is organized.
These people are assholes.
Nothing of the sort. They're long-term residents looking out for what's best for their community.
And it's exactly the kind of completely gratuitous negativity (project by outsiders, who otherwise couldn't begin to care what goes on in their town), exemplified above, which shores up this instinct that many of them have to protect what they have. Because they know that you're definitely not concerned about what impact projects like these will have on their quality of life and long-term fiscal interests.
>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 they only care about themselves, yes, that is the very definition of asshole.
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 they only care about themselves, yes, that is the very definition of asshole.
kafkaesq(3)
[deleted]
The residents of Brisbane get to inhale deeply of the fumes generated by nearby enormous mountains of garbage from SF and the bay area on a daily basis. I understand completely why they'd oppose development. Now I suspect if there were a deal in play to remove the awful stench once and for all, there'd be something in it for them.
Right now, they should drag this out as long and as hard as they can IMO lest they get screwed again. Because if the place didn't smell like a$$ on a daily basis, it would have been discovered and gentrified long ago (I remember checking the place out myself in 2007). It could be a fantastic suburb of SF in a world where win/win usually triumphed over I got mine so @#$% you. But that's not how this area works in my experience.
Right now, they should drag this out as long and as hard as they can IMO lest they get screwed again. Because if the place didn't smell like a$$ on a daily basis, it would have been discovered and gentrified long ago (I remember checking the place out myself in 2007). It could be a fantastic suburb of SF in a world where win/win usually triumphed over I got mine so @#$% you. But that's not how this area works in my experience.
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?
I (as someone who supports building more in the Bay Area) don't want the onus to be just on Brisbane. I want it to be on the whole Bay Area, and all of its townships.
That one of the major issues I think the Bay Area faces: each township passes the buck to the next: "Why should we build housing, when township X is completely unwilling to do so?" Yes, and they say the same thing about you! With this attitude, nothing will ever get built, anywhere.
That one of the major issues I think the Bay Area faces: each township passes the buck to the next: "Why should we build housing, when township X is completely unwilling to do so?" Yes, and they say the same thing about you! With this attitude, nothing will ever get built, anywhere.
I think we should recognize that SF and Brisbane are not in the same league. Anything Brisbane would build would be a drop in the bucket. SF can potentially add a hundred thousand units --two hundred thousand units, no problem without changing the character from village to full-blown city. 4,00 units more than doubles the pop of Brisbane. If we added 200,000 units to _only_ SF, that would add 25% to their pop. Another 200,000 would add 20% to SJ.
The Problem is SF, Oakland and SJ --localities which can/could build if they wanted to but simply don't.
The Problem is SF, Oakland and SJ --localities which can/could build if they wanted to but simply don't.
Oakland seems to be approving residential towers at a decent clip. I'm not sure it belongs in the same breath as SF and SJ.
It also increases the built area of Brisbane.
There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.
Brisbane is 6.5 miles from downtown SF (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+downtown+san+...)
The entire peninsula is tiny, it's not fair to compare it to Zurich.
The entire peninsula is tiny, it's not fair to compare it to Zurich.
You can find both grazing cows and vineyards WITHIN the city limits of Zurich, less than 3 miles from the center.
Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.
I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space.
But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...
But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...
> Brisbane, California is not a "small town"
Brisbane is a small town. It is dense, not sprawling. It has a town square and a handful of shops. It has schools. It is surrounded by empty space on all sides. It is in a canyon of San Bruno Mountain on three sides and surround by bay water and rail yards on the north side. You don't know what you are talking about
Brisbane is a small town. It is dense, not sprawling. It has a town square and a handful of shops. It has schools. It is surrounded by empty space on all sides. It is in a canyon of San Bruno Mountain on three sides and surround by bay water and rail yards on the north side. You don't know what you are talking about
That's not the town. That's the industrial park. The town is just south of there. It's made up of houses, not warehouses. Even including the industrial park, Brisbane is small, a town, not sprawling, and is completely detached from SF by water and a couple miles of rail yards. Tunnel Ave is really long and no one drives on it. It is effectively a country road that leads from SF to Brisbane. Go drive it or bike it or walk it some time. Brisbane is a completely separate place from SF
You obviously have no idea what the boundaries of Brisbane are.
Here you go. It's EXACTLY as I described. http://www.zipmap.net/California/San_Mateo_County/Brisbane.h...
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.
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,...
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,...
Your link still points to a house outside of Brisbane proper... how transit efficient is San Francisco outside of downtown? BART doesn't reach most of SF, MUNI is abysmal and buses...well, Brisbane has buses too.
I think your assessment is a bit heavy handed considering how bad public transit is in the area in general.
I think your assessment is a bit heavy handed considering how bad public transit is in the area in general.
You seem to be defining "Brisbane proper" as the area between San Francisco Ave. and Firth Park. But Brisbane is much more extensive. The majority of its land area is taken up by empty land, single-story material handling facilities, and ludicrous sprawl at "The Ridge".
I wonder how many self-driving cars live in that house...
Oh, you're raising a non-sequitor. Got it.
That's not what we call an 'exurb', either.
That's not what we call an 'exurb', either.
I think that was part of the point. IE: "if the principal city is built properly" implies the principal city isn't built properly.
Oh, that makes sense. Instead of talking about what we could actually do -- build high-density by an existing and underused transit hub -- let's complain about the way the entire Bay Area is laid out!
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.
“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”
An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.
An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.
If Silicon Valley were serious about solving its housing crisis (which it's not), there are solutions. Because while you're concern trolling that Brisbane doesn't feel any sort of civic duty to create some sort of Gibsonian tech ghetto with their valuable (but really smelly) land, the valley could solve this problem on its own by relaxing zoning laws (which they won't).
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-l...
Now imagine an alternate reality where the BART had circled the bay and then extended northward, southward, and eastward instead of getting @#$%blocked in 1961 by San Mateo county. But since we can't have nice things like that, Brisbane IMO owes SF and the bay area nothing and they should squeeze out the last drop of profit from this situation.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the...
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-l...
Now imagine an alternate reality where the BART had circled the bay and then extended northward, southward, and eastward instead of getting @#$%blocked in 1961 by San Mateo county. But since we can't have nice things like that, Brisbane IMO owes SF and the bay area nothing and they should squeeze out the last drop of profit from this situation.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the...
Gibsonian tech ghetto? That's a bit exaggerated. We are talking about building medium density housing and mixed use around a railway station versus commercial property and office parks. Sounds more like what Brisbane wants with the commercial property is closer to a Gibsonian tech ghetto to me.
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 this, no?
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 this, no?
> 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 South Bay.
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 South Bay.
sensible urban planning
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
if Google follows through on building a campus there
Those parcels in San Jose were originally acquired for the ballpark that never happened, either. I suspect they offered them to Google at far below their value, as with the A's.
Well, as someone who was once caught in the net of Google's "Let's hire every smart person in the valley and give them menial jobs to keep them off the market" plan of 2011, I wouldn't rule out the "Let's develop the last pieces of available land in Silicon Valley so no one else can" plan of 2018 because WTF else do you do with billions of dollars in profit?
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.
I think to the planners who make these decisions, helping people is simply a positive externality.
You have things backwards. Planners try to smooth things out or at least prevent disasters.
Most of the existing towns in the SF Bay Area are full of great opportunities for expansion but NIMBYs want their villages to stay the same. That is driven not by planners but reactionaries.
This particular plot of land is a chronically flooded lagoon and swamp which is awkwardly distant from local transit.
It is interesting that instead of being realistic about this land's obviously undesirable nature this article chose instead to print a picture of a nearby plot. The picture shows the former Schlage factory grounds which have undergone extensive remediation and are getting a new high density community built in no small part because of the ongoing efforts of planners to get the highest and best use for that site.
As long as people can't stop lying about what the situation is and what options might be available the chances of a favorable outcome are low.
Most of the existing towns in the SF Bay Area are full of great opportunities for expansion but NIMBYs want their villages to stay the same. That is driven not by planners but reactionaries.
This particular plot of land is a chronically flooded lagoon and swamp which is awkwardly distant from local transit.
It is interesting that instead of being realistic about this land's obviously undesirable nature this article chose instead to print a picture of a nearby plot. The picture shows the former Schlage factory grounds which have undergone extensive remediation and are getting a new high density community built in no small part because of the ongoing efforts of planners to get the highest and best use for that site.
As long as people can't stop lying about what the situation is and what options might be available the chances of a favorable outcome are low.
> 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.
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.
the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.
She's not even trying to hide her selfishness. What a lack of empathy.
it reminds me of the mentality of the extreme right and left wing. if they just repeat their rhetoric over and over, and in groups, it gives them a sense of solace that they aren't being inhumane, greedy pigs.
Life is a competition, everyone is selfish. Why hide it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People's wellbeing would be served equally well by the California government designating land for development outside of the intractable San Fran polity, and encouraging tech companies, restaurants, and commercial entities to invest in the area.
The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future, not forcing it upon them due to outside interests.
We aren't 14th century serfs, and closer to home---we aren't waitresses, maintenance workers, or migrant farmers. We are tech workers in a market were demand vastly outstrips demand, so the notion that we are forced to move to San Francisco alone for work lacks perspective.
People want to live in San Fran, not merely because of work, but because of the character of the city, the trendy restaurants, etc. People want San Fran for its luxuries, and its that which I do not believe trumps the ownership stakes of the residents whom already live there.
The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future, not forcing it upon them due to outside interests.
We aren't 14th century serfs, and closer to home---we aren't waitresses, maintenance workers, or migrant farmers. We are tech workers in a market were demand vastly outstrips demand, so the notion that we are forced to move to San Francisco alone for work lacks perspective.
People want to live in San Fran, not merely because of work, but because of the character of the city, the trendy restaurants, etc. People want San Fran for its luxuries, and its that which I do not believe trumps the ownership stakes of the residents whom already live there.
A local's desire for a quiet street doesn't morally outweigh another American's desire to live on that street.
>The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future
Precisely! We The People determined that it would be our future to have freedom of movement, via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. When we ratified the 14th Amendment, we further reiterated that every American citizen is entitled to equal status under state laws.
That's why prosperous cities resist growth through ham-fisted but plausibly-deniable proxy measures like zoning, rent control, and environmental review. Their goals could be achieved with more elegance and fewer damaging side effects by establishing immigration controls, but they can't, because the American community says that's off-limits.
Subsets of America closing themselves off is a perversion of the right to self-determination, same as it is when people and corporations decide not to pay their federal taxes. It doesn't matter that San Franciscans don't want more neighbors, any more than it matters that the tax evader wants to keep his income. The democratic process ordained that you have to share.
Americans trying to move around America are not outside interests, they are members of the community. Local NIMBY policies transfer wealth to small subsets while harming the community in aggregate, which is right down the middle of behaviors that governments should and usually do shut down.
As people with disposable income, tech workers find a way: redirect some of it to rent. The real victims of opportunity hoarding are the others in the economically stagnant towns we come from would like to follow us but can't. And of course, locals who remain subject to the pressure-cooker housing market, because NIMBY policies are imperfect and ensnare some natives too (those who didn't lock in rent control or mortgages in time).
>The essence of democracy is allowing people to determine their own future
Precisely! We The People determined that it would be our future to have freedom of movement, via the Privileges and Immunities Clause. When we ratified the 14th Amendment, we further reiterated that every American citizen is entitled to equal status under state laws.
That's why prosperous cities resist growth through ham-fisted but plausibly-deniable proxy measures like zoning, rent control, and environmental review. Their goals could be achieved with more elegance and fewer damaging side effects by establishing immigration controls, but they can't, because the American community says that's off-limits.
Subsets of America closing themselves off is a perversion of the right to self-determination, same as it is when people and corporations decide not to pay their federal taxes. It doesn't matter that San Franciscans don't want more neighbors, any more than it matters that the tax evader wants to keep his income. The democratic process ordained that you have to share.
Americans trying to move around America are not outside interests, they are members of the community. Local NIMBY policies transfer wealth to small subsets while harming the community in aggregate, which is right down the middle of behaviors that governments should and usually do shut down.
As people with disposable income, tech workers find a way: redirect some of it to rent. The real victims of opportunity hoarding are the others in the economically stagnant towns we come from would like to follow us but can't. And of course, locals who remain subject to the pressure-cooker housing market, because NIMBY policies are imperfect and ensnare some natives too (those who didn't lock in rent control or mortgages in time).
She may have worded it poorly, but here's the context:
> Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.
I don't agree with them but that's still a valid concern
> Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.
I don't agree with them but that's still a valid concern
"fuck you, I got mine." that is what she's saying.
Those numbers don't make a lot of sense. Wouldn't 4400 homes generate something in the vicinity of 50 million dollars in annual property taxes?
If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million of value of the average home among the 4400. I paged through the report that is linked to the article [1] and it says that about $9.5 million is the city's share of the property tax revenue (table on page 14 of the consultant's report). So there's a gap to be understood.
[1] http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_...
[1] http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_...
I'd imagine the missing $8.5 million of profit goes towards the cost of services for ~10,000 new residents. That's only $850/year/person.
This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27.
[1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf
This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27.
[1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf
I don't know who is the genius who crunches such kind of numbers. Even though 4400 homes will only get $1 million in direct property taxes. There will be huge indirect economic boost that will happen because of the so many people that will stay. There will be new opportunities for the locals for employments & businesses. There will be lot of restaurants, shopping center etc that will cater to these residents. That will be more than building commercial properties and getting $9 million in property revenues.
Let's assume that the 4400 homes are $1 million each; that will be $4.4 billion in property value; property tax (aside from that dedicated to approved bonds) is fixed at 1%, so with million dollar homes it would gross $44 million in property taxes. So, it'd take much more expensive homes to net around $50 million for the city, and while I don't see a clear estimate of the price of the homes, the fact that the article points to affordability as an issue addressed suggest the plan isn't to build million-dollar homes.
who gets that property taxes??
> if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail
The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?
The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?
Residents have kids who go to school, they need hospitals, they take up services. That million dollars a year net is only going to go down over time as things get more expensive and the real estate taxes stay the same. Eventually they'll lose money.
Cities don't have to make money they just have to not lose it.
Cities don't have to make money they just have to not lose it.
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 in SF is dropping in price. The bubble seems to be popping there.
Meanwhile, real estate in SF is dropping in price. The bubble seems to be popping there.
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.
Stanford has only 2,180 faculty members.
This has been going around, but even this plan to build 4400 dwellings is still total nonsense, because the plan also includes office space for 15000 people. 15000 jobs requires much more than 4400 dwellings, so this plan will just make things worse.
I recommend comparing and contrasting with this plan for Coyote Valley, to see what real urbanism looks like. http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Coyote-V...
I recommend comparing and contrasting with this plan for Coyote Valley, to see what real urbanism looks like. http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Coyote-V...
My current favorite local example of this taken to its ridiculous ends is this one: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/internal-affairs-san-j... . Where San Jose and Santa Clara are going back and forth suing each other about who gets to have the businesses and who has to bear the "burden" of having housing.
That plan is from 2003. Not familiar with the area, how did it turn out?
It's on ice. Nobody is building anything in Coyote Valley. But it's a wonderful plan.
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
I think the issue as it stands is that the current residents have only 2 options:
A.) Approve high density housing and then see the value of their current house drop (and rental income drop if they are landlords) and their schools, grocery stores, parks, open space, parking, favorite restaurants, fitness centers and traffic become all be super crowded
B.) Approve high density office and then see the value of their current house skyrocket, see additional community benefits from developer concessions and no impact to their current community amenities.
What happens if the developer proposed a third option of profit sharing so the current residents each benefit as individuals:
C.) Build high density housing and high density office and give a significant share of the profits to the existing residents. For 4400 units, the profits could easily be in the $500M to $1B range. With only ~2350 (4700/2) households, profit sharing of $50 to $100K per household would be $120M to $235M. That could be a nice down payment for a house in the Central Valley if they want to have that small town feel. Profit sharing on the annual office rent could also provide some UBI income for the residents and keep apartment rents stable.
A.) Approve high density housing and then see the value of their current house drop (and rental income drop if they are landlords) and their schools, grocery stores, parks, open space, parking, favorite restaurants, fitness centers and traffic become all be super crowded
B.) Approve high density office and then see the value of their current house skyrocket, see additional community benefits from developer concessions and no impact to their current community amenities.
What happens if the developer proposed a third option of profit sharing so the current residents each benefit as individuals:
C.) Build high density housing and high density office and give a significant share of the profits to the existing residents. For 4400 units, the profits could easily be in the $500M to $1B range. With only ~2350 (4700/2) households, profit sharing of $50 to $100K per household would be $120M to $235M. That could be a nice down payment for a house in the Central Valley if they want to have that small town feel. Profit sharing on the annual office rent could also provide some UBI income for the residents and keep apartment rents stable.
> B.) Approve high density office and then see the value of their current house skyrocket, see additional community benefits from developer concessions and no impact to their current community amenities.
The state of California needs some sort of Beds for Butts in Office Chairs legislation. Want to build office space and expand your tax base? Pony up the space to house those employees.
The state of California needs some sort of Beds for Butts in Office Chairs legislation. Want to build office space and expand your tax base? Pony up the space to house those employees.
Agreed! Even then though you still need to get it past the existing NIMBY population. I think buying them out via cash payments is really the only way to get existing NIMBYs on board with high density residential units which were not zoned when the bought into the community.
Basically the issue is that the developers are changing the rules of the game AFTER the existing NIMBYs bought into the community.
Basically the issue is that the developers are changing the rules of the game AFTER the existing NIMBYs bought into the community.
Nope. Zoning codes that existed when NIMBYS bought are no protection against opposition to housing.
It might be easier for residents and elected officials to welcome growth if the city received more tax dollars for doing so. But the opposite is true.
Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.
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 — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.
I have suggested before that tax incentives are part of why we have this issue. This isn't exactly the way I figured it was screwing things up, but it is evidence that tax structures are part of the problem.
Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.
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 — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.
I have suggested before that tax incentives are part of why we have this issue. This isn't exactly the way I figured it was screwing things up, but it is evidence that tax structures are part of the problem.
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 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.
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.
> Problem being, a lot of people would get absolutely screwed by that, and end up losing their home.
Would there be many? Certainly, there were some cases pre-prop 13, but prop 13 wasn't narrowly focussed on protecting homeowners. Those were exploited as pretext, they weren't the motivation.
And you could make it protect homeowners while fixing the local government incentives by providing a refundable state income tax credit for 100% of the property tax due to assessed value increases beyond the existing Prop 13 limits. You could do this without or without, modifying the 1% fixed rate.
If you don't want that big of a subsidy, you could just allow homeowners to defer without penalty the excess amount until transfer of the property. Still stops people from being priced out of their homes.
Would there be many? Certainly, there were some cases pre-prop 13, but prop 13 wasn't narrowly focussed on protecting homeowners. Those were exploited as pretext, they weren't the motivation.
And you could make it protect homeowners while fixing the local government incentives by providing a refundable state income tax credit for 100% of the property tax due to assessed value increases beyond the existing Prop 13 limits. You could do this without or without, modifying the 1% fixed rate.
If you don't want that big of a subsidy, you could just allow homeowners to defer without penalty the excess amount until transfer of the property. Still stops people from being priced out of their homes.
In retrospect, even the pretext was bunk. It turns out that turfing old people out of their giant, valuable houses is a benefit rather than a problem. Today, thanks to Prop 13, Boomers are massively over-housed.
Why wouldn't phasing it out across 10 to 15 year period to mitigate the effects, not take care of the bulk of the problem?
If we'd begun a phase out in 2000, during the height of the tech boom, then by now Prop 13 would be gone and the housing situation would be much different.
If we'd begun a phase out in 2000, during the height of the tech boom, then by now Prop 13 would be gone and the housing situation would be much different.
It's fine to examine the negative effects of repeal, but you also have to consider the negative effects of not repealing.
Prop13 is a monster that will continue to exacerbate inequality. Families that owned homes in affluent areas pre-1970 will continue to pay artificially suppressed property tax rates in perpetuity, so long as they only transfer the house within their immediate family. In that way, Prop13 is a perverse incentive to suppress real estate transactions, which exacerbates the real estate issues we already have.
Prop13 is a monster that will continue to exacerbate inequality. Families that owned homes in affluent areas pre-1970 will continue to pay artificially suppressed property tax rates in perpetuity, so long as they only transfer the house within their immediate family. In that way, Prop13 is a perverse incentive to suppress real estate transactions, which exacerbates the real estate issues we already have.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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 sudden traffic spikes due to the knee jerk reaction of building 100's of more houses in an area that wasn't even planned to support more than what is existing.
People do need housing but people also need to be realistic about where they live and how they plan to keep on living there.
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 sudden traffic spikes due to the knee jerk reaction of building 100's of more houses in an area that wasn't even planned to support more than what is existing.
People do need housing but people also need to be realistic about where they live and how they plan to keep on living there.
With respect to your and our values, the people of the state have mandated that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced below 1990 levels by year 2020, and state law requires every city to adopt a climate action plan to that effect. Brisbane's adopted plan recognizes that transportation is the majority of the city's greenhouse gas emissions, and acknowledges that "Lack of affordability in urban core housing causes people to live far away from where they work", but does not propose fixing this problem. The only solution their climate action plan proposes is to install public electric car chargers!
[deleted]
> 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...
They aren't building new houses between old houses...
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.
Ah, well in that case, property taxes in theory should be neting exactly $0! The government isn't supposed to be for-profit after all...
Build up, not out.
Easy solution.
Easy solution.
>> 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 — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.
>> “I’d like to think if just the fiscal incentives were reversed, if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail, we’d be having a very different conversation in California,” Stivers said.
>> “I see a lot of stuff,” Dettmer said. “I see beds in garages. You have to increase the [housing] supply. If you really want to help out people, let them live in dignity. It just seems like a no-brainer.”
>> “I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”
These were the quotes that stood out to me. It seems like, for various reasons, the only benefit to existing residents and policy makers is "we may be able to help other people". That's not enough of an incentive.