
Tensions Flare in Silicon Valley Over Growth - caseyf7
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/technology/silicon-valley-california-growth.html
======
simonw
Any time I have to ride the Caltrain I play a game of "spot places you could
fit an apartment block". It's stunning how many Caltrain stations are
surrounded by empty land, parking lots or single story buildings. Public
transport hubs should have housing near them!

~~~
capkutay
I know what you mean. That Bayshore stop is baffling:

[http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/47/72/11/10461791/3/920x920.jpg](http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/47/72/11/10461791/3/920x920.jpg)

Sure, it's near a waste processing plant. But the fact that the area around it
is just a square mile of shrubs and dirt is ridiculous. They could probably
fit 2000 homes there right by the train station, 15 minutes from San
Francisco, 10 minutes from the airport, 10 minutes from Milbrae BART. Other
vastly under-built areas like Belmont also raise questions.

However, Hillsdale and Redwood City have done a good job building dense
housing right around their respective stations.

~~~
inferiorhuman
The Bayshore station isn't really baffling. It's an ex-Southern Pacific
railyard and requires significan cleanup. The city of Brisbane (where the
station is) wants to build an industrial park, pretty much everyone else wants
that development to include housing. It's been in the news quite a bit.

~~~
paulsutter
It is truly baffling that there is any debate or delay.

The obvious answer is to build high density housing and offices there. Low
density suburban anything would be a tragedy.

~~~
Spooky23
Not really. Rail yards are usually a real shitshow in terms of toxic
contamination and nasty stuff.

One site near my home just had a casino built on it, which will require active
ventilation of wells sunk in the ground for years to prevent toxic gas
buildup.

~~~
Zach_the_Lizard
Quite a few neighborhoods are built on or being built on them. The two that
come to mind in recent years are the new Hudson Yards neighborhood in NYC
(being built on the West Side Yard) and Potomac Yards (built where those rail
yards were) in Alexandria, VA right outside DC.

A number of Manhattan neighborhoods are built on former rail yards. On mobile
but I believe there is even a wikipedia page on it.

If the demand is high enough developers would love to clean it up. SF prices
are at that level.

~~~
inferiorhuman
The developers do want to clean it up and build housing. The city (and
residents) of Brisbane are the objectors. In this case I think the planned
development would roughly double the population of Brisbane. It's
understandable that they would object, but less sympathetic given how absurdly
low density Brisbane is.

------
kinofcain
One of the reasons that cities build office space while ignoring residential
is Prop 13 which fixes residential property taxes. Taxes on equivalent office
space and the business it generates are a better source of revenue over time
for cities than the fixed taxes from housing. This disincentivizes balanced
planning.

One thing that also should be mentioned: while it's perfectly ok to want your
city to stay the same, it's not practical to put the burden of growth on other
cities. And it's also not legal. California law actually requires
municipalities to plan for and support their share of new housing[1].
Something many cities are not doing.

[1]
[http://wwwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_203PLR.pdf](http://wwwww.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_203PLR.pdf)

~~~
rsync
"Taxes on equivalent office space and the business it generates are a better
source of revenue over time for cities than the fixed taxes from housing. This
disincentivizes balanced planning."

I am not sure either of your conjectures are true...

First, "over time" the tax returns from residential and commercial property,
even under the prop 13 regime, should even out - since _eventually_ everyone
dies or moves out ... eventually all of the residential property changes hands
(and resets to current taxation levels).

Second, _brand new_ residential property gets immediately taxed at the current
tax rate. So in the very short term that doesn't seem to be (relatively)
disincentivized.

I'm oversimplifying, but it would seem that only in the medium term does prop
13 affected residential housing (relatively) underperform commercial property
- in terms of (relative) tax receipts.

~~~
kinofcain
Sure but it's always "medium term": Taxes weren't fixed once, they are fixed
at time of house purchase (and some other events).

It would only be revenue neutral if they had raised the absolute rates to make
up for the fact that an increasing number of people are paying under the
current rate.

------
jacobolus
The lack of any substantial quantity of residential development other than
large single-family detached homes on large lots in cities like Santa Clara,
Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino, etc. is absolutely destroying the Bay
Area. It forces people to commute from further away, increasing traffic,
sprawl, and radically distorting the housing market. We don’t need to turn
these towns into Hong Kong or Tokyo, but just build a few blocks radius of 4–6
story mixed-use low-rise apartment buildings around each transit stop, with
relaxed parking requirements.

The response of the cities, which is basically to put their fingers in their
ears and shout "La la la la we can’t hear you” is a farce. They keep
pretending that they can keep indefinitely building office space without
anywhere for the workers to live, while maintaining the same small town feel
from when these suburbs were first built over the top of agricultural land in
the middle of the last century.

~~~
jdavis703
People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong
Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciaton of their assets
and don't make forcing the negative effects on anyone else. It makes me think
you should be able to vote in both the place you live and work. I pay taxes to
Palo Alto and spend the majority of my waking hours there, yet have no say in
what rules and regulations the government makes (or doesn't) while I'm there.

~~~
DannyBee
"People aren't concerned their cute neighborhood is going to look like Hong
Kong. They're concerned they won't see the rapid appreciation of their assets
"

You assert this as if it's true for all people. But it's really really not. I
actually _do not_ want to live in an urban area. I _am_ worried my cute
neighborhood will turn into hong kong.

As the article says, we are going from suburban to urban with nothing in
between.

I don't actually give a crap about rapid appreciation of my home or anything
else like that.

People who actually can afford multi-million dollar houses can usually can
afford to diversify, and with such low mortgage rates, it pretty much makes
_no_ sense to tie large amounts of equity in a home and hope for rapid
appreciation. It's a very risky investment strategy.

When most of the area was orchards, and some of the first development
restrictions were passed, it was not about property values.

I also don't think acting like yours is the only acceptable viewpoint, and
nobody else could possibly have a valid concern, is going to get any of these
issues solved.

So, rather than just blindly assert what everyone's concerns and views are,
and dismiss them out of hand, maybe you should try to have a well-reasoned
discussion?

(and FWIW, i'm actually not anti-development, i'm anti-people who don't
actually want to have a reasoned discussion about things, and instead, just
want to assert whatever view they've come up with. I'm honestly surprised at
the arrogance in this thread).

~~~
muninn_
Good comment and perspective.

I don't live in the Bay Area, but I actually hope that the problem gets worse
and that non-development continues. It can/does keep some engineers here in
areas like where I live.

The primary issue the Bay Area has is that, as you mentioned, there is no in-
between. It's either skyscrapers or gigantic houses with expansive yards. What
the area actually needs is more mixed-use development neighborhoods.

~~~
rsync
"The primary issue the Bay Area has is that, as you mentioned, there is no in-
between. It's either skyscrapers or gigantic houses with expansive yards. What
the area actually needs is more mixed-use development neighborhoods."

The Bay Area is a very large, very diverse place and has plenty of the
inbetween of which you speak.

In fact, right in the epicenter of this particular Silicon Valley - in
downtown Mountain View, for instance, there is quite a bit of medium density,
two and three story apartment complexes centered around the small downtown.

Or take the N-Judah all the way to the beach - that's filled with two and
three story apartment buildings. Certainly, many people believe that's the
problem - it should be four and five story apartment buildings - but it is
really not true at all that the Bay Area is "either skyscrapers or gigantic
houses with expansive yards".

~~~
jacobolus
The zoning in the Sunset is outrageous. If you take the N Judah, almost the
whole neighborhood (except for a few tiny bits) is zoned for very low density
residential.

Look at all the light yellow on the zoning map:
[http://default.sfplanning.org/zoning/zoning_map.pdf](http://default.sfplanning.org/zoning/zoning_map.pdf)

Upzoning a significant percentage of the Sunset and providing faster public
transit from there to other parts of town is in my opinion one of the best
things SF could do for local housing prices.

------
idlewords
We really need a regional planning authority for the Bay Area, with the power
to override local zoning boards, exercise eminent domain, and with an enormous
budget for building mass transit.

Politically, I think the only way to get there is to wait for the Big One.
Plate tectonics has become the best hope for urbanism in northern California.

~~~
zeroer
Eminent domain is unfair. If you want the land, pay for it.

~~~
jacobolus
Note that eminent domain requires just compensation. Land seized does get paid
for.

~~~
baddox
It's hard to define "just compensation" as anything other than a market price,
meaning the price that a buyer and seller agree upon when the buyer isn't
"negotiating" using the threat of force.

~~~
Certhas
What makes you think market prices are just? This might not be an easy problem
to solve, but it's not an impossible one either. ED would be used when people
are unwilling to sell. If you can buy 20 plots of land from people willing to
sell for price X and then the two hold outs who are unwilling to sell have to
EDed, you know perfectly well what just compensation is.

This is a perfect case where leaving it to the market does not generate the
most welfare or the most just outcomes. A form of rent seeking behaviour.

~~~
shostack
Except in a fair market, if a developer managed to get all but a couple
holdouts, those remaining would likely be able to command higher prices as
they would have leverage. ED robs then of the extra money they could have
made, and it can be considerable.

~~~
Spooky23
There's an obvious defect in that approach. The incentive there is to delay
the transaction as long as possible. Worst case scenario, the public project
fails and you keep your stuff.

~~~
shostack
If you are someone being forced out by ED, that seems like a pretty positive
outcome if you didn't want to move in the first place.

Not all public projects are desired by all people, and it is far from a black
and white issue.

~~~
Spooky23
I didn't intend to portray it that way.

It's certainly imperfect, especially when it's used for stadiums or other
private purposes. But even then -- At least it's an open, public process and
not some secretive thing that puts neighbor against neighbor.

------
nopinsight
The East Bay should get more attention from investors and the startup
community. The area includes a world-class university with huge student
population (UC Berkeley), a less NIMBY atmosphere, beautiful natural settings,
and proximity to San Francisco, for significantly more affordable costs. Why
is that still not the case?

I am not sure about the NIMBYism though. It certainly exists but I feel it's
less intense than in Silicon Valley proper. Could someone with more knowledge
of the issues share your opinions?

~~~
sAuronas
There is no such less NIMBYism in Oakland. The stakeholders are just
different. There is also a racism problem: I sat at a round table forum where
the most successful developer in the city (he's building that Brooklyn Basin
project) said banks don't want to lend in Oakland when they can just lend to
Developers in SF (500/sf is not good enough to deal with minorities, etc). But
you're right, East Bay cities ought to get more attention. The person above is
right though - Prop 13, as well as CA ballot system is killing the cities and
making them museums to car-centric suburbs of the past.

------
WalterBright
I'm actually a bit surprised that offices and apartments aren't in the same
building. Wouldn't it be convenient to work in the same building you live in?
Getting a job at a company could come with a 'perq' of getting an apartment in
the same building. It could be a very attractive recruiting tool.

~~~
atroyn
I urge you to look into the history of company towns.

What happens when they fire you and kick you out of company housing? What
happens when unpaid overtime is the norm because you're not really 'at work'
despite being in the same building?

Campuses like Facebook's already creep me out with the whole potemkin village
vibe.

~~~
WalterBright
> What happens when they fire you and kick you out of company housing?

That would depend on what your contract with the landlord says.

Anyway, consider that universities offer student housing. Nobody makes
students live in that housing, and students don't expect to continue living in
it when they are no longer enrolled. Nobody seems to think that is a problem.

~~~
CardenB
That's vastly different.

1\. You aren't living with authority figures. The RA's that you live with are
also students. So minimal conflict of interest in living your life.

2\. You don't expect to live there indefinitely

3\. You aren't relying on the school to provide means for living. You're
paying the school for the privilege to be there. That means you aren't screwed
if they fire you.

~~~
WalterBright
> You aren't living with authority figures. The RA's that you live with are
> also students. So minimal conflict of interest in living your life.

You're living under the university's code of conduct, and the RA is there to
keep tabs that you do. Many students do move off campus for that reason, and
for privacy reasons.

------
Tempest1981
We're seeing a lot of poor planning by cities. And they are being pushed hard
by developers, and probably want the revenue.

People would be less NIMBY if they saw better planning. As it is, quality of
life is suffering as we fail to balance commercial development with
residential -- and address traffic/transit, schools, parks, bike routes, etc.

------
Hondor
What are the motives of people who want to stop this development?:

"In July, San Jose sued to stop the project, saying it would create 25,000
jobs but provide 1,350 apartments at most. That would shift “the environmental
burden and expense to support that economic development onto neighboring
cities and counties”

If you own property, it'll increase it's value. If you live there, you'll have
more jobs. If you have to pay for roads - well that bill probably goes to the
property owners and developers who can build more houses to serve those
people. If you want to help the economy, more jobs is good.

Who loses out with growth like that? The view of the skyline? Are there really
that many luddites in San Jose? Surely someone must stand to lose money, but
who?

~~~
Naritai
The 23,650 people who get jobs in that development but have nowhere to live.
These people end up having to live a 2hr drive or 2.5hr mass transit ride away
- or, maybe they can save up for 15 years so they can afford a 1bdm nearby.
Intentionally building dense commercial areas but restricting residential is a
deliberate scheme (as you point out!) to drive real estate prices up for
existing owners. Well, the city of San Jose has stood up and said 'no more'.

------
golergka
Hey, this may be an unrelated question, but how come real estate developers
are always villains in american TV shows and movies? All the comments here are
about how there's not enough development, and people tend to agree that NIMBY
attitude is bad, and yet, every time a real estate developer is portrayed on
screen he's an evil scoundrel who's trying to throw people out on the street.
Am I the only one who's seeing the contradiction here?

~~~
Agathos
They're throwbacks to classic Westerns where big ranchers try to force out
small homesteaders.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_\(film\))

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War)

------
scharfstevenm
It's only fair for the state to require housing to offset new office space. In
Silicon Valley, the issue is that there is no more land in cities like Palo
Alto or Cupertino for more housing, more school, or more roads, and the
transit agency is grossly incompetent so there is no new mass transit.
Developers care only about short term profit and never look at the big
picture.

------
LeanderK
i don't get it. they are not solving anything, they are just making the
housing situation worse. by not providing adequate housing- and office-space
the pressure on every individual will just rise and rise.

