Maybe time to for tech companies to pause trying to squeeze every possible human into their SV castles?
-
-
Replying to @obrien
I don't think you get how the cities are complicit in this. All of the Bay Area cities keep approving *just* office space but not sufficient housing bc they want the tax revenue but don't want to have to pay for residents.
2 replies 6 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I get that perfectly, thx. Yes, they should stop approving tech expansion plans, absolutely. You can approve 10,000 homes, but if let Facebook build space for 10,000 employees, you're still making zero progress on housing issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @obrien @kimmaicutler
You can approve 1 million new housing units, but then Google will just keep hiring in SV. You can turn SV into Manhattan, but housing prices will still suck. These cities need to rethink economic development in a way that is not driven by the endless lust for growth.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @obrien
much of New York City is significantly cheaper than the peninsula/South Bay bc they keep building in line with population and economic growth. If you have lack of growth, there is no way to pay for the city/state's long-term liabilities which are already cannibalizing services.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @obrien
if property owners on the peninsula/South Bay actually paid a sufficient amount of property tax, such that their governments didn't have to rely on tech to pay for infrastructure/services, I would be like OK, you can be left alone. But that's not actually what happens.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @obrien
Taking our Sunnyvale house as an example... we paid about $12k of property taxes last year. $1k a month. If you use the current estimated value of the home as the assessed value, we should have paid more than $28k. A 16k difference is a huge one for a single family.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The challenge becomes how you extract more taxes from a property owner who has not realized any financial benefit from the property's estimate increasing. The price, theoretically, could go down, or they may not ever have a selling event.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @louisgray @obrien
but the current situation is that when you get a capped tax base, that is also inheritable, the land owner basically absorbs a disproportionate share of economic value/growth through appreciation. And then if the city wants to compensate for the difference of that
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
in say, subsidizing affordable housing, for low-income tenants, the land is *that* much more expensive to acquire or rent. It's not a coincidence that in SF, it's $300K per unit to local taxpayer subsidy to build/rehab and affordable unit *and* single-family home prices
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
also appreciate by $300K/ year there. You'd want to capture more of that upside for either public infrastructure or housing subsidies to more vulnerable residents (as is done in other parts of the world) but you can't.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.