3 ms·

> residential real estate generally doesn't pay its way how could that be possible? if residents are a financial drain on a city, then where does it get its in

> residential real estate generally doesn't pay its way how could that be possible? if residents are a financial drain on a city, then where does it get its income? tourism? industry operated by non-residents? if true, then by not building residences all you're doing is pushing the costs onto the neighboring towns. but that's obviously not sustainable, because eventually those towns would go bankrupt, or they'd also "wise up" and push residents out from their own town, and you'd have some geographically-expanding bubble of financially-sound towns with 0 residents. i don't buy it.

pchristensen 3y ago
Sales tax, business taxes, tax on commercial and industrial real estate, etc. These also require services, but don't put kids into public school and are much less emotional about tax changes compared to residents. And you're exactly right, in California most towns would happily guarantee that no new resident ever moves in, and just continue to collect taxes from workers that commute from farther and farther away. Cities at the edge of the bubble (Dublin, Brentwood, Gilroy, etc) build housing because a) they're turning undeveloped land into housing, and b) new housing construction is less unprofitable for the municipality in the beginning and can be offset by development fees. It sounds crazy, and yet, it's true. For example, Palo Alto has 100,000 workers commuting in to a city of 70,000 people - http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo-alto-work-live-commute.html http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo-alto-work-l...
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  That being said, while it's 100% the case that SFHs don't pay for themselves, I bet high-rises change the math a bit.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    Schooling is a big expense, and it's not much cheaper with high rises. (It's a little bit cheaper, but only because of bussing.)
renewiltord 3y ago
Well, not "zero" residents. You'd expect to just grow more commercial than residential. And since the ones doing any restrictions are residents, you'd expect them to ensure they are protected.
Tempest1981 3y ago
San Jose struggles with this balance -- too much residential. This article explains a bit: Why San Jose Is Barely in the Black Despite the Tech Boom https://www.kqed.org/news/10580994/why-san-jose-is-barely-in-the-black-despite-the-tech-boom https://www.kqed.org/news/10580994/why-san-jose-is-barely-in... With 1 million residents, San Jose is the 10th-largest city in the United State, according to the U.S. Census. But each workday, it drops to the equivalent of the 13th-largest city. That's because residents leave San Jose for jobs elsewhere in Silicon Valley. That has negative consequences for the city budget. Take sales taxes, for instance. San Jose pulls in some of the lowest revenues per capita in Santa Clara County. Every business lunch bought in Los Gatos, every pair of hiking boots in Campbell, helps to cement a regional imbalance. The smaller cities are pulling in more sales tax income relative to their population base. That applies to hotel, business, utility and parcel taxes, too. ... San Jose is now the biggest bedroom community in Silicon Valley, but it didn’t find the right balance to create the tax base it needs today.

pchristensen 3y ago

Sales tax, business taxes, tax on commercial and industrial real estate, etc. These also require services, but don't put kids into public school and are much less emotional about tax changes compared to residents. And you're exactly right, in California most towns would happily guarantee that no new resident ever moves in, and just continue to collect taxes from workers that commute from farther and farther away. Cities at the edge of the bubble (Dublin, Brentwood, Gilroy, etc) build housing because a) they're turning undeveloped land into housing, and b) new housing construction is less unprofitable for the municipality in the beginning and can be offset by development fees. It sounds crazy, and yet, it's true. For example, Palo Alto has 100,000 workers commuting in to a city of 70,000 people - http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo-alto-work-live-commute.html http://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2018/01/palo-alto-work-l...

BobaFloutist 3y ago
That being said, while it's 100% the case that SFHs don't pay for themselves, I bet high-rises change the math a bit.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Schooling is a big expense, and it's not much cheaper with high rises. (It's a little bit cheaper, but only because of bussing.)

renewiltord 3y ago

Well, not "zero" residents. You'd expect to just grow more commercial than residential. And since the ones doing any restrictions are residents, you'd expect them to ensure they are protected.

Tempest1981 3y ago

San Jose struggles with this balance -- too much residential. This article explains a bit: Why San Jose Is Barely in the Black Despite the Tech Boom https://www.kqed.org/news/10580994/why-san-jose-is-barely-in-the-black-despite-the-tech-boom https://www.kqed.org/news/10580994/why-san-jose-is-barely-in... With 1 million residents, San Jose is the 10th-largest city in the United State, according to the U.S. Census. But each workday, it drops to the equivalent of the 13th-largest city. That's because residents leave San Jose for jobs elsewhere in Silicon Valley. That has negative consequences for the city budget. Take sales taxes, for instance. San Jose pulls in some of the lowest revenues per capita in Santa Clara County. Every business lunch bought in Los Gatos, every pair of hiking boots in Campbell, helps to cement a regional imbalance. The smaller cities are pulling in more sales tax income relative to their population base. That applies to hotel, business, utility and parcel taxes, too. ... San Jose is now the biggest bedroom community in Silicon Valley, but it didn’t find the right balance to create the tax base it needs today.