16 ms·

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisban

>> “We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.” >> Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget. >> “I’d like to think if just the fiscal incentives were reversed, if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail, we’d be having a very different conversation in California,” Stivers said. >> “I see a lot of stuff,” Dettmer said. “I see beds in garages. You have to increase the [housing] supply. If you really want to help out people, let them live in dignity. It just seems like a no-brainer.” >> “I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” These were the quotes that stood out to me. It seems like, for various reasons, the only benefit to existing residents and policy makers is "we may be able to help other people". That's not enough of an incentive.

getemback 9y ago
Those numbers don't make a lot of sense. Wouldn't 4400 homes generate something in the vicinity of 50 million dollars in annual property taxes?
- mars4rp 9y ago
  who gets that property taxes??
- cardiffspaceman 9y ago
  If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million of value of the average home among the 4400. I paged through the report that is linked to the article [1] and it says that about $9.5 million is the city's share of the property tax revenue (table on page 14 of the consultant's report). So there's a gap to be understood. [1] http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_04062017.pdf http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_...
  - derekdahmer 9y ago
    I'd imagine the missing $8.5 million of profit goes towards the cost of services for ~10,000 new residents. That's only $850/year/person. This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27. [1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf
- rajeshp1986 9y ago
  I don't know who is the genius who crunches such kind of numbers. Even though 4400 homes will only get $1 million in direct property taxes. There will be huge indirect economic boost that will happen because of the so many people that will stay. There will be new opportunities for the locals for employments & businesses. There will be lot of restaurants, shopping center etc that will cater to these residents. That will be more than building commercial properties and getting $9 million in property revenues.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Let's assume that the 4400 homes are $1 million each; that will be $4.4 billion in property value; property tax (aside from that dedicated to approved bonds) is fixed at 1%, so with million dollar homes it would gross $44 million in property taxes. So, it'd take much more expensive homes to net around $50 million for the city, and while I don't see a clear estimate of the price of the homes, the fact that the article points to affordability as an issue addressed suggest the plan isn't to build million-dollar homes.
tj-teej 9y ago
I think to the planners who make these decisions, helping people is simply a positive externality.
- m0llusk 9y ago
  You have things backwards. Planners try to smooth things out or at least prevent disasters. Most of the existing towns in the SF Bay Area are full of great opportunities for expansion but NIMBYs want their villages to stay the same. That is driven not by planners but reactionaries. This particular plot of land is a chronically flooded lagoon and swamp which is awkwardly distant from local transit. It is interesting that instead of being realistic about this land's obviously undesirable nature this article chose instead to print a picture of a nearby plot. The picture shows the former Schlage factory grounds which have undergone extensive remediation and are getting a new high density community built in no small part because of the ongoing efforts of planners to get the highest and best use for that site. As long as people can't stop lying about what the situation is and what options might be available the chances of a favorable outcome are low.
cylinder 9y ago
A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. These people are assholes.
- getemback 9y ago
  There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.
  - aphextron 9y ago
    Zurich is not located on a 7 mile wide peninsula.
    - glibgil 9y ago
      This is some strange SF manifest destiny argument
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.
    - getemback 9y ago
      I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space. But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-122.330704,3a,78.3y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1shttps:%2F%2Fthumbs.trulia-cdn.com%2Fpictures%2Fthumbs_6%2Fps.102%2Fe%2F7%2F5%2Fd%2Fpicture-uh%3D9c9ef53f4781e89553177368d022-ps%3De75d7f71be33c23a4e3456941b73ffa7-142-Elderberry-Ln-Brisbane-CA-94005.jpg!2e7!3e27!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FjFOwihIPa-3H8QgXCGQ-ml2v3OklBa9hKVt3vmtj1YKCdX7sXcJmtp5tXnET_ujA_xFhQZl_IYdtZkrQZ2sh6wI0WGNMQjDnXoM-5_fMEFuHsctScZjCUljHrMmoniDsXhgA0YrAwUgBSS7q-Pif_R1prKxUtAs%3Dw159-h106-k-no!7i1440!8i960!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f78d8f2a30531:0xff55e02fce53ae30!8m2!3d37.6807661!4d-122.3999715 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...
mylons 9y ago
the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.
- jimbobob 9y ago
  She's not even trying to hide her selfishness. What a lack of empathy.
  - mylons 9y ago
    it reminds me of the mentality of the extreme right and left wing. if they just repeat their rhetoric over and over, and in groups, it gives them a sense of solace that they aren't being inhumane, greedy pigs.
  - true_religion 9y ago
    As an outsider, the discussion of San Fransisco housing seems incredibly polarized. Are advocates of new housing talking about disenfranchising their parents, grandparents, and older aunts and uncles? Are they actually talking about tearing down their old family homes that they grew up in and putting up apartment complexes instead? If so then... wow that's a level of forward-thinking that's truly rare. If not ... then these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want whatever district they move to temporarily for jobs to utterly change its character to suit them, at the expense of those already resident there. And yet anything they find sentimental, and all of their families' land assets, will remain safe in their hometowns far-far from San Fransisco.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      You don't get to criticize us for being temporary when it is the policies you write that force us out. And yes, if for some reason millions of people wanted to move to Wisconsin, I'd rather they built on the site of my family home than lived in RVs and mega-commuted. People's well being matters more than the sentimental value of manufactured goods. I didn't win the genetic lottery to be born in a place with economic opportunity. But I am an American, and since we live in America and not 14th century feudal Europe, I am not obligated to stay put.
jorams 9y ago
> if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?
- patmcguire 9y ago
  Residents have kids who go to school, they need hospitals, they take up services. That million dollars a year net is only going to go down over time as things get more expensive and the real estate taxes stay the same. Eventually they'll lose money. Cities don't have to make money they just have to not lose it.
sdenton4 9y ago
“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.
- oneshot908 9y ago
  If Silicon Valley were serious about solving its housing crisis (which it's not), there are solutions. Because while you're concern trolling that Brisbane doesn't feel any sort of civic duty to create some sort of Gibsonian tech ghetto with their valuable (but really smelly) land, the valley could solve this problem on its own by relaxing zoning laws (which they won't). https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-look-if-all-silicon-valleys-employees-actually-lived-there/8429/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-l... Now imagine an alternate reality where the BART had circled the bay and then extended northward, southward, and eastward instead of getting @#$%blocked in 1961 by San Mateo county. But since we can't have nice things like that, Brisbane IMO owes SF and the bay area nothing and they should squeeze out the last drop of profit from this situation. http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the-south-bay/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the...
  - erentz 9y ago
    Gibsonian tech ghetto? That's a bit exaggerated. We are talking about building medium density housing and mixed use around a railway station versus commercial property and office parks. Sounds more like what Brisbane wants with the commercial property is closer to a Gibsonian tech ghetto to me.
    - oneshot908 9y ago
      Sounds to me like they want to max out tax revenue and that's their right. Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? All this developer has to do is make building that housing a no-brainer for Brisbane, but I suspect in doing so the profitability plummets or somebody would have already done this, no?
anth1988 9y ago
> >> “I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” 63 year old said that. How about in honour of the different time we stop bothering to keep the elderly alive. I feel sorry for them for not getting the health care that they need, but it's a different time.
rbanffy 9y ago
> That's not enough of an incentive. One relatively simple solution is to pass laws that mandate building homes along stores and hotels. Want to build a large hotel and some stores? Need to also build 4,400 affordable houses. And, since we are fixing the world, add to that mandatory investment in clean energy for seawater desalination, because water and energy for those homes will have to come from somewhere. And I didn't even suggest higher density habitations.

getemback 9y ago

Those numbers don't make a lot of sense. Wouldn't 4400 homes generate something in the vicinity of 50 million dollars in annual property taxes?

mars4rp 9y ago
who gets that property taxes??
cardiffspaceman 9y ago
If you assume that the property tax on those homes was .011, which is the 1% baseline plus possible voter-approved add-ons, you get $48.4 million per $1 million of value of the average home among the 4400. I paged through the report that is linked to the article [1] and it says that about $9.5 million is the city's share of the property tax revenue (table on page 14 of the consultant's report). So there's a gap to be understood. [1] http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_04062017.pdf http://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/ccBaylandsHearing_...
- derekdahmer 9y ago
  I'd imagine the missing $8.5 million of profit goes towards the cost of services for ~10,000 new residents. That's only $850/year/person. This study [1] should give you an idea: the median residential property operates at a net loss to the city at a revenue to expenditures ratio of 1:1.15 whereas commercial operates at a huge net gain at 1:0.27. [1] http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf http://landuse.uga.edu/Documents/cocsrep.pdf
rajeshp1986 9y ago
I don't know who is the genius who crunches such kind of numbers. Even though 4400 homes will only get $1 million in direct property taxes. There will be huge indirect economic boost that will happen because of the so many people that will stay. There will be new opportunities for the locals for employments & businesses. There will be lot of restaurants, shopping center etc that will cater to these residents. That will be more than building commercial properties and getting $9 million in property revenues.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Let's assume that the 4400 homes are $1 million each; that will be $4.4 billion in property value; property tax (aside from that dedicated to approved bonds) is fixed at 1%, so with million dollar homes it would gross $44 million in property taxes. So, it'd take much more expensive homes to net around $50 million for the city, and while I don't see a clear estimate of the price of the homes, the fact that the article points to affordability as an issue addressed suggest the plan isn't to build million-dollar homes.

tj-teej 9y ago

I think to the planners who make these decisions, helping people is simply a positive externality.

m0llusk 9y ago
You have things backwards. Planners try to smooth things out or at least prevent disasters. Most of the existing towns in the SF Bay Area are full of great opportunities for expansion but NIMBYs want their villages to stay the same. That is driven not by planners but reactionaries. This particular plot of land is a chronically flooded lagoon and swamp which is awkwardly distant from local transit. It is interesting that instead of being realistic about this land's obviously undesirable nature this article chose instead to print a picture of a nearby plot. The picture shows the former Schlage factory grounds which have undergone extensive remediation and are getting a new high density community built in no small part because of the ongoing efforts of planners to get the highest and best use for that site. As long as people can't stop lying about what the situation is and what options might be available the chances of a favorable outcome are low.

cylinder 9y ago

A "small town" ... 7 miles from the center of a major global city and metro area ... even closer to a major international airport. These people are assholes.

getemback 9y ago
There's nothing wrong with small villages 7 miles from a major city or even a capital city, if the principal city is built properly. If you walk 7 miles from the center of Zurich, Switzerland you'll probably find yourself in the middle of a vineyard or pasture.
- aphextron 9y ago
  Zurich is not located on a 7 mile wide peninsula.
  - glibgil 9y ago
    This is some strange SF manifest destiny argument
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Your statement appears to have nothing to do with the area that Brisbane, CA is located in.
  - getemback 9y ago
    I was just objecting to the idea that a small town was inappropriate in this context. With a suitable urban form there's no reason why you couldn't take the entire population of Brisbane and put them all on 640 acres, with 80% open space. But Brisbane, California is not a "small town" it's a disgusting example of exurban sprawl. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-122.330704,3a,78.3y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1shttps:%2F%2Fthumbs.trulia-cdn.com%2Fpictures%2Fthumbs_6%2Fps.102%2Fe%2F7%2F5%2Fd%2Fpicture-uh%3D9c9ef53f4781e89553177368d022-ps%3De75d7f71be33c23a4e3456941b73ffa7-142-Elderberry-Ln-Brisbane-CA-94005.jpg!2e7!3e27!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FjFOwihIPa-3H8QgXCGQ-ml2v3OklBa9hKVt3vmtj1YKCdX7sXcJmtp5tXnET_ujA_xFhQZl_IYdtZkrQZ2sh6wI0WGNMQjDnXoM-5_fMEFuHsctScZjCUljHrMmoniDsXhgA0YrAwUgBSS7q-Pif_R1prKxUtAs%3Dw159-h106-k-no!7i1440!8i960!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f78d8f2a30531:0xff55e02fce53ae30!8m2!3d37.6807661!4d-122.3999715 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brisbane,+CA/@37.679201,-1...

mylons 9y ago

the quote from Michele Solomon of Brisbane is disgusting.

jimbobob 9y ago
She's not even trying to hide her selfishness. What a lack of empathy.
- mylons 9y ago
  it reminds me of the mentality of the extreme right and left wing. if they just repeat their rhetoric over and over, and in groups, it gives them a sense of solace that they aren't being inhumane, greedy pigs.
- true_religion 9y ago
  As an outsider, the discussion of San Fransisco housing seems incredibly polarized. Are advocates of new housing talking about disenfranchising their parents, grandparents, and older aunts and uncles? Are they actually talking about tearing down their old family homes that they grew up in and putting up apartment complexes instead? If so then... wow that's a level of forward-thinking that's truly rare. If not ... then these people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want whatever district they move to temporarily for jobs to utterly change its character to suit them, at the expense of those already resident there. And yet anything they find sentimental, and all of their families' land assets, will remain safe in their hometowns far-far from San Fransisco.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    You don't get to criticize us for being temporary when it is the policies you write that force us out. And yes, if for some reason millions of people wanted to move to Wisconsin, I'd rather they built on the site of my family home than lived in RVs and mega-commuted. People's well being matters more than the sentimental value of manufactured goods. I didn't win the genetic lottery to be born in a place with economic opportunity. But I am an American, and since we live in America and not 14th century feudal Europe, I am not obligated to stay put.

jorams 9y ago

> if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail The article points out concerns about the size of the expansion relative to the current city, which makes sense, but why is tax income a concern for a city? Surely it doesn't exist to make as much money as possible?

patmcguire 9y ago
Residents have kids who go to school, they need hospitals, they take up services. That million dollars a year net is only going to go down over time as things get more expensive and the real estate taxes stay the same. Eventually they'll lose money. Cities don't have to make money they just have to not lose it.

sdenton4 9y ago

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” An excellent encapsulation of what I call the "fuck you, got mine" mode of American politics.

oneshot908 9y ago
If Silicon Valley were serious about solving its housing crisis (which it's not), there are solutions. Because while you're concern trolling that Brisbane doesn't feel any sort of civic duty to create some sort of Gibsonian tech ghetto with their valuable (but really smelly) land, the valley could solve this problem on its own by relaxing zoning laws (which they won't). https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-look-if-all-silicon-valleys-employees-actually-lived-there/8429/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/02/heres-what-it-would-l... Now imagine an alternate reality where the BART had circled the bay and then extended northward, southward, and eastward instead of getting @#$%blocked in 1961 by San Mateo county. But since we can't have nice things like that, Brisbane IMO owes SF and the bay area nothing and they should squeeze out the last drop of profit from this situation. http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the-south-bay/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/history-of-bart-to-the...
- erentz 9y ago
  Gibsonian tech ghetto? That's a bit exaggerated. We are talking about building medium density housing and mixed use around a railway station versus commercial property and office parks. Sounds more like what Brisbane wants with the commercial property is closer to a Gibsonian tech ghetto to me.
  - oneshot908 9y ago
    Sounds to me like they want to max out tax revenue and that's their right. Were you jumping up and down and holding your breath when San Jose built office space and very little housing for exactly the same reason during the first dotcom boom? All this developer has to do is make building that housing a no-brainer for Brisbane, but I suspect in doing so the profitability plummets or somebody would have already done this, no?

anth1988 9y ago

> >> “I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.” 63 year old said that. How about in honour of the different time we stop bothering to keep the elderly alive. I feel sorry for them for not getting the health care that they need, but it's a different time.

rbanffy 9y ago

> That's not enough of an incentive. One relatively simple solution is to pass laws that mandate building homes along stores and hotels. Want to build a large hotel and some stores? Need to also build 4,400 affordable houses. And, since we are fixing the world, add to that mandatory investment in clean energy for seawater desalination, because water and energy for those homes will have to come from somewhere. And I didn't even suggest higher density habitations.