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 …
-
-
I'm pointing out a larger structural issue that I see repeatedly throughout the region, which is cities have a really deep structural mismatch between what the state allows them to collect in revenue and what they're obligated to spend and tech to an extent papers over that but
-
also gets disproportionately priced into real estate values given the bifurcation of the labor market and then (the same) structural incentives preventing an adequate amount of housing to be built with jobs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not a legal obligation to sell Google public land, allow them to 2x dev capacity and rewrite our area plan and secretly shape $10B in public investments either. The public is giving a lot of goods to Google, why shouldn’t we expect something better than more rent hikes in return?
-
aren't they effectively being forced to sell the land to *someone* because the state of California is forcing disposition of redevelopment agencies on a specific timeline?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also, report doesn't call for philanthropy, it’s value capture and mitigation. Read the report, policy and deal points we’re recommending for Google’s dev agreement /w City make sense, City Policy reccs aligns /w what Google has prepared to do elsewhere, ideas from other cities.
-
We’re not saying Google needs to build this all itself, just make a substantial investment towards these goals and support policy to address the rest.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.