3 ms·

> The developer is super shady and is using legal tricks to make themselves tons of money at the expense of the community. The developer bent over backwards to

> The developer is super shady and is using legal tricks to make themselves tons of money at the expense of the community. The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" only to see Better Cupertino torpedo the whole process out of rage at having to live by poorer neighbors. SB 35 is precisely the "legal trick" that was needed to force bad actors like Cupertino to do their part. > There are plenty of other ways for them to be both profitable and provide below market housing without building millions of square feet of office space. Cross-subsidy of affordable housing with office space is how affordable housing gets built. There is almost no funding available. Look at how long it took to get a paltry 211 units of affordable housing built in Oakland: https://twitter.com/LibbySchaaf/status/1128872869771980800?s=19 https://twitter.com/LibbySchaaf/status/1128872869771980800?s... Anyway, Vallco is an embarrassing blight on the South Bay. Virtually anything would be better than the decaying mall that's there today.

jedberg 7y ago
> The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Furthermore, if you look at their track record, it's terrible. They don't deliver on anything they promise. Did you know that there was supposed to be a park at Main Street? They somehow got the City Council to approve a variance after the project went forward (and coincidentally raised a bunch of money for one of the city council members). I suspect they would do the same with that park roof they suggested, which every engineer you ask will tell you is most likely impossible to build. The crux of the issue here is that there was some major corruption between the city council and the developer, which seems to have been solved with the most recent election, and now someone needs to clean up the mess. > Cross-subsidy of affordable housing with office space is how affordable housing gets built. There is almost no funding available. That's fine, but how about building less office than housing, and then put in an amount of affordable housing commensurate with the income from the offices? Or how about no office at all, and instead put an extra tax on the retail businesses to pay for affordable housing? There are lots of other options besides building a mega office park that would create a housing deficit. That solves nothing. > Anyway, Vallco is an embarrassing blight on the South Bay. Virtually anything would be better than the decaying mall that's there today. It's only decaying because the developer wouldn't renew the leases of the people who were in there, so they could push the "abandoned" narrative. It sucked for the business owners who were forced out. Yeah, a lot of them were behind on rent, but that was because the developer put no resources into the mall. They manufactured its accelerated demise for their narrative. So yeah, I agree, it's a blight now, but a blight the very same developers brought upon us. Oh, and did I mention those developers break city ordinances all the time with seemingly no consequence? They were doing construction at 3am on Sunday at one point. How do I know? They banged so hard my kid was scared awake. I have video of them bulldozing at 3am on a Sunday. I called to police, who said they couldn't even identify if they had a permit. But they were at it again the next weekend!
- pcwalton 7y ago
  > I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Because Better Cupertino refused to work with the developer in any way. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that is operating in bad faith; conspiracy theories and accusations of "corruption" are a hallmark of bad faith debate. The goal was simply a wish to prevent any housing whatsoever from being developed. There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site. Steven Scharf made his intentions very clear when he made a disgusting joke about building a wall around Cupertino and making San Jose pay for it. There isn't anything more I can say on the topic of Vallco that hasn't been already written by others. Suffice it to say that that the NIMBYism of exclusive suburbs like Cupertino is not a good look to ordinary Californians, which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    I'm the least NIMBY person you will find. I think they should build 30 story towers of housing on that property and make 1/2 of it affordable. I'm not at all against housing on that site. I think it's critical that we put housing there. I'm against that developer putting offices on the site that would create a housing deficit. > There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site I proposed a tax on the retail to fund the affordable housing. > which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well. I'm a huge supporter of SB 50.

jedberg 7y ago

> The developer bent over backwards to please the "community" I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Furthermore, if you look at their track record, it's terrible. They don't deliver on anything they promise. Did you know that there was supposed to be a park at Main Street? They somehow got the City Council to approve a variance after the project went forward (and coincidentally raised a bunch of money for one of the city council members). I suspect they would do the same with that park roof they suggested, which every engineer you ask will tell you is most likely impossible to build. The crux of the issue here is that there was some major corruption between the city council and the developer, which seems to have been solved with the most recent election, and now someone needs to clean up the mess. > Cross-subsidy of affordable housing with office space is how affordable housing gets built. There is almost no funding available. That's fine, but how about building less office than housing, and then put in an amount of affordable housing commensurate with the income from the offices? Or how about no office at all, and instead put an extra tax on the retail businesses to pay for affordable housing? There are lots of other options besides building a mega office park that would create a housing deficit. That solves nothing. > Anyway, Vallco is an embarrassing blight on the South Bay. Virtually anything would be better than the decaying mall that's there today. It's only decaying because the developer wouldn't renew the leases of the people who were in there, so they could push the "abandoned" narrative. It sucked for the business owners who were forced out. Yeah, a lot of them were behind on rent, but that was because the developer put no resources into the mall. They manufactured its accelerated demise for their narrative. So yeah, I agree, it's a blight now, but a blight the very same developers brought upon us. Oh, and did I mention those developers break city ordinances all the time with seemingly no consequence? They were doing construction at 3am on Sunday at one point. How do I know? They banged so hard my kid was scared awake. I have video of them bulldozing at 3am on a Sunday. I called to police, who said they couldn't even identify if they had a permit. But they were at it again the next weekend!

pcwalton 7y ago
> I was part of those meetings. Not a single thing the residents asked for was offered in their plans. Because Better Cupertino refused to work with the developer in any way. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that is operating in bad faith; conspiracy theories and accusations of "corruption" are a hallmark of bad faith debate. The goal was simply a wish to prevent any housing whatsoever from being developed. There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site. Steven Scharf made his intentions very clear when he made a disgusting joke about building a wall around Cupertino and making San Jose pay for it. There isn't anything more I can say on the topic of Vallco that hasn't been already written by others. Suffice it to say that that the NIMBYism of exclusive suburbs like Cupertino is not a good look to ordinary Californians, which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well.
- jedberg 7y ago
  I'm the least NIMBY person you will find. I think they should build 30 story towers of housing on that property and make 1/2 of it affordable. I'm not at all against housing on that site. I think it's critical that we put housing there. I'm against that developer putting offices on the site that would create a housing deficit. > There is inconsistency in your very post about whether you want affordable housing (which you have not proposed a funding mechanism for) or retail on the site I proposed a tax on the retail to fund the affordable housing. > which is why SB 50 for example polls so overwhelmingly well. I'm a huge supporter of SB 50.