3 ms·
> You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it,
by ak217 9y ago
> You could let developers build skyscrapers right next to the single Caltrain station (you know...the one next to the city dump?), and they still won't do it, because the demand doesn't exist.
There is literally a developer (http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/ http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/) waiting to build a project there. They submitted a proposal with 4400 residential units, and the NIMBYs are trying to shut it down.
> Make it quick and painless to commute to Brisbane (or any other city) by something other than car, and you won't have to tell the local lawmakers how to set their rules.
It's already quick and painless to commute to the proposed development by Caltrain. The local lawmakers are structurally incentivized to keep development out, which is the whole reason for this legislative proposal.
- timr 9y agoI have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning. If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument). [1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes." http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...
- ak217 9y ago> I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret. > the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income. > If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.