4 ms·

I guess I don't understand why this is an issue. How is 1,000 software "coders" as the article quotes different from 1,000 administrative personnel. I could u

I guess I don't understand why this is an issue. How is 1,000 software "coders" as the article quotes different from 1,000 administrative personnel. I could understand if the goal of zoning wanted to preserve Downtown as a destination/place for generating foot traffic/visitors...but I don't see a difference between an office of 1,000 HR people for Amazon and 1,000 software engineers.

pj_mukh 10y ago
Coders aren't as attractive as Lawyers and Administrative staff. Palo Alto has got to look HAWT! \s.
beamatronic 10y ago
They all get hungry - they generate a demand for goods and services such as restaurants - which is really good for their downtown economy.
- hendzen 10y ago
  Not if their company provides free food/beer.
  - compiler-guy 10y ago
    Exactly. All the Google cafes more-or-less destroyed demand for the restaurants that used to exist around the old SGI headquarters. One could argue that the cafes do replace those businesses, just in a different form. And one would be right, but the tax situation works out differently, especially the sales tax situation.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      It's not just a tax problem. It also works out differently for the people who don't work at those tech companies. A downtown that houses mostly businesses that feed their employees will become less "porous" over time, and less amendable to people who live downtown vs. those who work downtown. A downtown without restaurants and bars and corner shops is not a downtown worth speaking of. I spent several years living in Houston, which, at the time, had among the least pleasant downtowns I'd ever seen, or have seen since. It was completely bereft of good food, small shops, etc. There was no reason to go downtown unless you worked there, and no way to live there, and it showed. At night, it was a total dead zone; the fourth largest city in the nation, and its downtown population at night approached zero.
  - ng12 10y ago
    I have spent more money at The Patio than I would care to admit. The second I left my job downtown I never went back. I get the feeling the sentiment is more about "get off my lawn you pesky techies" than about actual economics.
mathattack 10y ago
There's a lot of subtext behind zoning in Palo Alto, some of it between people who still want to live in the 1970s version of the city. In this case, the issue is what happens to non-tech businesses in downtown. When there are a large supply of small and medium professional services business, the bars, restaurants, barbers and small shops do well. The Palantir employees tend to eat in their own cafeteria, and are perceived to purchase less from the local businesses. This is why there's an element of the population that prefers smaller businesses whose employees go downtown during the lunch hour. The city does have space though, they just choose not to build on it. Another research park could be built and zoned for. (As could more housing) The article also doesn't quote the many Palo Alto residents who like being a short commute to work, rather than taking Caltrain to SF for tech jobs.
- djrogers 10y ago
  > The Palantir employees tend to eat in their own cafeteria If that is a problem, then the zoning laws should restrict cafeterias, not job functions. The more specific and direct that regulations get, the better things tend to be.
  - mathattack 10y ago
    I go the other way. I don't want to restrict too much land usage. Just open more commercial space.
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    Except that's a very transparent solution to a problem which doesn't belong to Palantir or their employees, aka the food being served down town either isn't good enough or isn't served fast enough for Palantir employees to voluntarily choose it. Everyone except the businesses would justifiably riot.
    - SilasX 10y ago
      There's also an issue of tax distortion. In the tax code as written, it's a deductible expense to provide an onsite cafeteria, and employees don't have to count it as income. But if an employee goes offsite to get lunch, they have to buy it with after-tax money. So when the business buys them food, it's effectively at a 1/3 discount to what they'd have to pay after-tax out-of-pocket -- more when you consider sales taxes and bulk discounts! So it's not exactly a level playing field there either.

pj_mukh 10y ago

Coders aren't as attractive as Lawyers and Administrative staff. Palo Alto has got to look HAWT! \s.

beamatronic 10y ago

They all get hungry - they generate a demand for goods and services such as restaurants - which is really good for their downtown economy.

hendzen 10y ago
Not if their company provides free food/beer.
- compiler-guy 10y ago
  Exactly. All the Google cafes more-or-less destroyed demand for the restaurants that used to exist around the old SGI headquarters. One could argue that the cafes do replace those businesses, just in a different form. And one would be right, but the tax situation works out differently, especially the sales tax situation.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    It's not just a tax problem. It also works out differently for the people who don't work at those tech companies. A downtown that houses mostly businesses that feed their employees will become less "porous" over time, and less amendable to people who live downtown vs. those who work downtown. A downtown without restaurants and bars and corner shops is not a downtown worth speaking of. I spent several years living in Houston, which, at the time, had among the least pleasant downtowns I'd ever seen, or have seen since. It was completely bereft of good food, small shops, etc. There was no reason to go downtown unless you worked there, and no way to live there, and it showed. At night, it was a total dead zone; the fourth largest city in the nation, and its downtown population at night approached zero.
- ng12 10y ago
  I have spent more money at The Patio than I would care to admit. The second I left my job downtown I never went back. I get the feeling the sentiment is more about "get off my lawn you pesky techies" than about actual economics.

mathattack 10y ago

There's a lot of subtext behind zoning in Palo Alto, some of it between people who still want to live in the 1970s version of the city. In this case, the issue is what happens to non-tech businesses in downtown. When there are a large supply of small and medium professional services business, the bars, restaurants, barbers and small shops do well. The Palantir employees tend to eat in their own cafeteria, and are perceived to purchase less from the local businesses. This is why there's an element of the population that prefers smaller businesses whose employees go downtown during the lunch hour. The city does have space though, they just choose not to build on it. Another research park could be built and zoned for. (As could more housing) The article also doesn't quote the many Palo Alto residents who like being a short commute to work, rather than taking Caltrain to SF for tech jobs.

djrogers 10y ago
> The Palantir employees tend to eat in their own cafeteria If that is a problem, then the zoning laws should restrict cafeterias, not job functions. The more specific and direct that regulations get, the better things tend to be.
- mathattack 10y ago
  I go the other way. I don't want to restrict too much land usage. Just open more commercial space.
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  Except that's a very transparent solution to a problem which doesn't belong to Palantir or their employees, aka the food being served down town either isn't good enough or isn't served fast enough for Palantir employees to voluntarily choose it. Everyone except the businesses would justifiably riot.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    There's also an issue of tax distortion. In the tax code as written, it's a deductible expense to provide an onsite cafeteria, and employees don't have to count it as income. But if an employee goes offsite to get lunch, they have to buy it with after-tax money. So when the business buys them food, it's effectively at a 1/3 discount to what they'd have to pay after-tax out-of-pocket -- more when you consider sales taxes and bulk discounts! So it's not exactly a level playing field there either.