Interesting that the estimated $235M in increased rents to tenants from bringing in 20K tech workers to San Jose is almost as much as the $339M/yr the city spends on unfunded pension liabilities for former employees who no longer work there. https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-pension-plans-unfunded-liability-expected-to-soar/ …https://twitter.com/wpusanews/status/1138861019307040770 …
-
-
Why did San Jose sell 10 acres of land to Google for a mega-campus? Because it's a mostly residential city and it loses money on land that contains housing and earns net tax revenue on land that contains office space. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdfs/SPUR_Back_in_the_Black.pdf …pic.twitter.com/fPxfHBgCYQ
Show this thread -
And because it is spending a quarter of its general fund every year on retirement obligations for people who no longer work there that weren't adequately covered by pension investment returns. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/82758 …pic.twitter.com/FwtiRySpw3
Show this thread -
The city's financial situation is still precarious enough that it still isn't even at staffing levels from almost 20 years ago because they had to lay off so many workers in the last recession. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8461 …
Show this thread -
So invariably, it sells land to Google to stabilize the city’s long-term financial situation even as everyone knows a large downtown Google campus will boost real estate values (and by proxy, damage housing affordability for tenants and future buyers.)
Show this thread -
Oh and did I mention that San Jose voters themselves dropped the ball on passing a $450M affordable housing bond last year? (Affordable housing is always great, as long as someone else pays for it and it’s not near me, naturally!)https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-mayor-eyes-second-chance-for-affordable-housing-measure/ …
Show this thread -
To be fair, as
@beyondchron points out, this is because the voter threshold is impossibly high at 2/3s rather than simple majority because of Prop. 218/13.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would property taxes in Oakland be enough to compensate for the necessities of a growing public sector, population and its pension obligations? Oaklands big problem seems to be its lack of companies to tax.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The inheritable nature of the property tax cap is something I didn't know until recently. It is mind-blowingly insane. California voters of 1978 figured out how to make themselves landed gentry and ensure everyone else stays peasants.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.