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
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JRBinSV
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 replies 0 retweets 1 like
if they sold to a less well-pocketed, established or known buyer, you definitely wouldn't be in the position you are now to publicly pressure for additional concessions.
-
-
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.