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 …
-
1:24Show this thread -
Almost like the Bay Area is structurally incentivized to balance its books (between retirement obligations that were never transparently budgeted for in the 1st place & capped, inheritable property tax assessments) on the backs of tenants & young people
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/oaklands-budget-battle-heats-up/Content?oid=26586639 …pic.twitter.com/4ux4gEoAXf
3 replies 11 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
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
3 replies 5 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Well except SJ families will pay $127M/yr more in rent if Google builds insufficient housing, City estimates $25M added tax revenue from office (even less net tax, minus services Google uses, like $8M.) It doesn’t add up unless Google invests in housing and prevents displacement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JRBinSV @kimmaicutler
If a $750B corporation offers a city $8M surplus rev annually in exchange for mostly lower income people in town paying $127M/yr more, in what economic reality does that seem like good policy much less just? Thankfully it’s avoidable if Google invests in fighting displacement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JRBinSV
It's your prerogative and it makes sense as a labor organizer to pressure the company to philanthropically donate more, but I'm not aware of another industry where it's a legal obligation for a business to also build housing when they open an office in town.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @JRBinSV
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.