This is awesome, and I want to see more. If cities continue allow for more jobs than housing, big companies can push back and require that they be allowed to build housing as part of their major office plans.https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/1-billion-investment-bay-area-housing/ …
-
-
Replying to @justinfagnani
I'm honestly confused how this will help. It sets the precedent that acquisition of office space is contestable because of potential conversion, likely creating NIMBY pushback against *all* construction/development.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
I think NIMBY pushback against office + housing is actually preferable to NIMBY pushback just against housing. I don't like it, but if you're not going to add housing, don't add jobs.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @justinfagnani
Agree, but I don't grok how this make what Google is doing somehow a good idea.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @justinfagnani
I.e., imagine you wanted to pull this "we're not increasing your tax base w/o attendant housing" lever...to do it, you need to act in coordination with your largest peers. That would instead imply an announcement of a compact between SalesForce, Google, Intel, FB, Apple, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @justinfagnani
You'd announce a Legalize-Housing PAC and explicitly call out non-participants, while making the cost to join high enough that you can fund the legal fights and do the public education campaigns.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The implicit, bank-shot route where you use the inevitable opposition from planning meetings to highlight this is...pretty tough to pull off.
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.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.