6 ms·

It sounds like Mountain View is being a huge pain in the ass... Maybe it's because I grew up in a redneck area that had no zoning or building codes, but the id

by douche 11y ago

It sounds like Mountain View is being a huge pain in the ass... Maybe it's because I grew up in a redneck area that had no zoning or building codes, but the idea that the government can tell you that you can't build what you want on property that you own is infuriating.

spiritplumber 11y ago
Well, it makes sense if you want to build, say, a gasifier or a chemical factory... but it doesn't seem to be the case. Are they worried about environmental impact, social impact, or just tax revenue
- dyoo1979 11y ago
  There's resistance for things you'd imagine should be no-brainers. For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance: http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/sunnyvale-nimbys-threaten-stevens-creek-trail-extension/ http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/sunnyvale-nimbys-threaten-stev... Cooperation is hard work.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    > For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance But how could you not love that bike path!? It gets you practical places and it's beautiful! My God, fucking NIMBYs.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      In the context of the entire population, very few enjoy biking. Maybe they object to spending a ton of money on something that benefits a very small percentage of the population.
      - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
        Given the hell that is morning traffic on the 101, the bicycle path is actually the easier and more pleasant commute alternative for a lot of people. Before claiming that only "a very small percentage of the population" benefit, we should look for numbers on how many people actually do use the bike path.
  - woah 11y ago
    Obnoxious and cranky people, of the kind that often get banned from online forums, sit in planning meetings and have their way.
    - michaelochurch 11y ago
      I bet that NIMBYKiller 3D would be a popular FPS in California. Bonus points for realism in the burning hedges-- if you "New Game+" it and have the flame-thrower when you get to the Atherton level.
      - seanp2k2 11y ago
        Let us not speak of things like expanding BART all the way to San Jose, and the traffic relief which that could bring.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The article implies that there is an in-total limit of new office space that has been adopted for some time period, which probably is based largely on ability to expand infrastructure to deal with added needs (e.g., commute traffic.) Why the decision was made to alot the lion's share of that alotment to LinkedIn rather than Google, I don't know. (Determining the actual cost to address the impacts and setting the cost of approval to recoup those costs, rather than setting hard limits, would seem a more efficient mechanism, if it could be done fairly and accurately, but that's not easier or less prone to political manipulation than setting limits and allocating within those limits.)
johansch 11y ago
California seems like paradise for NIMBY:ers.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  Maybe, if you own a significant amount of property, which is extremely expensive. So, in other words, if you're rich AF; yes.
- wyclif 11y ago
  The Bay Area specifically is a NIMBY paradise.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Parts of California, e.g., the Bay Area, have quite large concentrations of people who are secure enough in tgeir basic immediate needs to focus energy on more peripheral and/or longer-term concerns. NIMBY concerns are one of many such things.
vidarh 11y ago
It's infuriating until it prevents your neighbour from building a chemical factory right next to your house. Like it or not, what you build often substantially impacts your neighbours.
- ougawouga 11y ago
  Ok, something with noxious elements, yes. (Although I think it should be private neighborhood organizations to prevent this, not government). All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Traffic impacts that are created by increasing occupancy faster than new infrastructure can be built have adverse impacts on everyone using the transport infrastructure just like a polluting industry has an adverse impact on the area (also, it has a pollution impact, whether or not infrastructure is adequate, but that's probably generally not as big of a concern.) So, scale can make new office space a noxious impact, and the article seems to clearly indicate that a preexisting overall scale limit was applied and Google, who had asked for most of it, got far less, and LinkedIn got the lion's share.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > Although I think it should be private neighborhood organizations to prevent this How? Here's a way for me to speculate in this: - Buy properties around the edge of said private neighborhood, set up all kinds of highly offensive things all surrounding the neighbourhood. - Buy up properties in said neighbourhood as the price drops until I can get effective control of said organization. - Remove the aforementioned offensive things and wait for property prices to rice again. > All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path. Which impacts policing needs, fire services, traffic, public transport, garbage collections, postal services, and many others. It is also likely to have indirect effects on the local housing market, and through that an effect on local schools, hospitals and others. There's no such thing as just a couple of office buildings when it comes to urban planning.
gumby 11y ago
The government manages the externalities. For example, the sheer volume of office build out between the Shoreline and Rengstorff exits from 101 essentially installed a plug on 101 between those exits (really from Embarcadero to Moffet). MV council prefers plans that address that more. (The same problem, in reverse, happened when RWC tried to allow wetlands to be replaced with housing without improving the freeway infrastructure, which would simply have led to a clog not only for the residents but for everyone passing through). Another monoculture risk is to allow one company to use too high a percentage of the real estate...meaning if they go under or move there's suddenly a glut of office space with all its own trickle down problems as well. It's in the city's interest try to have a diversity of employers. It's good for the general infrastructure as well. (BTW I suspect your redneck area nevertheless had building codes at least for electrical and fire codes).
- cromwellian 11y ago
  Point #1 won't be fixed by trying to interfere with smart growth, instead, Google will end up leasing more office space spread around MV and traffic will continue to grow worse. Those companies are going to continue to hire more and more employees. Either the politicians actually work with them to come up with smart plans for growth to relief traffic pressure, or they can stick their heads in the sand hoping it'll go away. There have been proposals IIRC to improve freeway infrastructure around MV, but those were shot down by anti-growth members of the council. In fact, the council often votes to make traffic clogs worse: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/06/19/cycle-track-to-replace-expressway-ramp- http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/06/19/cycle-track-to-repla...
  - hollerith 11y ago
    You seem to believe that the government of Mountain View has no control over the number of employees commuting into Mountain View, but isn't restricting the total square footage of office space in MV is a fairly effective way of doing that? (Google leasing more office space around MV would be cancelled out by other employer's leasing less office space.)
- seanp2k2 11y ago
michaelochurch 11y ago
The Bay Area has a lot of trophy spouses who cover up the shame of unemployability by "serving" on the sorts of boards and councils that have the power to go hard-core NIMBY and fight progress and make it impossible to develop a housing density appropriate to the demand and job market. They do this because the artificially low housing availability spikes prices. They don't actually care about their communities; they just want to keep their houses priced at 5 times what they're actually worth. Of course, the breadwinners in those families (who finance the NIMBYs) get some karma when their trophy spouses (the ones pushing the NIMBY rules that prevent new development) give them stupid kids who'll require expensive and emotionally exhausting string-pulling in order to get them into schools. It's not enough, but it is something.

by douche 11y ago

spiritplumber 11y ago

Well, it makes sense if you want to build, say, a gasifier or a chemical factory... but it doesn't seem to be the case. Are they worried about environmental impact, social impact, or just tax revenue

dyoo1979 11y ago
There's resistance for things you'd imagine should be no-brainers. For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance: http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/sunnyvale-nimbys-threaten-stevens-creek-trail-extension/ http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/sunnyvale-nimbys-threaten-stev... Cooperation is hard work.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  > For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance But how could you not love that bike path!? It gets you practical places and it's beautiful! My God, fucking NIMBYs.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    In the context of the entire population, very few enjoy biking. Maybe they object to spending a ton of money on something that benefits a very small percentage of the population.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      Given the hell that is morning traffic on the 101, the bicycle path is actually the easier and more pleasant commute alternative for a lot of people. Before claiming that only "a very small percentage of the population" benefit, we should look for numbers on how many people actually do use the bike path.
- woah 11y ago
  Obnoxious and cranky people, of the kind that often get banned from online forums, sit in planning meetings and have their way.
  - michaelochurch 11y ago
    I bet that NIMBYKiller 3D would be a popular FPS in California. Bonus points for realism in the burning hedges-- if you "New Game+" it and have the flame-thrower when you get to the Atherton level.
    - seanp2k2 11y ago
      Let us not speak of things like expanding BART all the way to San Jose, and the traffic relief which that could bring.
dragonwriter 11y ago
The article implies that there is an in-total limit of new office space that has been adopted for some time period, which probably is based largely on ability to expand infrastructure to deal with added needs (e.g., commute traffic.) Why the decision was made to alot the lion's share of that alotment to LinkedIn rather than Google, I don't know. (Determining the actual cost to address the impacts and setting the cost of approval to recoup those costs, rather than setting hard limits, would seem a more efficient mechanism, if it could be done fairly and accurately, but that's not easier or less prone to political manipulation than setting limits and allocating within those limits.)

johansch 11y ago

California seems like paradise for NIMBY:ers.

seanp2k2 11y ago
Maybe, if you own a significant amount of property, which is extremely expensive. So, in other words, if you're rich AF; yes.
wyclif 11y ago
The Bay Area specifically is a NIMBY paradise.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Parts of California, e.g., the Bay Area, have quite large concentrations of people who are secure enough in tgeir basic immediate needs to focus energy on more peripheral and/or longer-term concerns. NIMBY concerns are one of many such things.

vidarh 11y ago

It's infuriating until it prevents your neighbour from building a chemical factory right next to your house. Like it or not, what you build often substantially impacts your neighbours.

ougawouga 11y ago
Ok, something with noxious elements, yes. (Although I think it should be private neighborhood organizations to prevent this, not government). All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Traffic impacts that are created by increasing occupancy faster than new infrastructure can be built have adverse impacts on everyone using the transport infrastructure just like a polluting industry has an adverse impact on the area (also, it has a pollution impact, whether or not infrastructure is adequate, but that's probably generally not as big of a concern.) So, scale can make new office space a noxious impact, and the article seems to clearly indicate that a preexisting overall scale limit was applied and Google, who had asked for most of it, got far less, and LinkedIn got the lion's share.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > Although I think it should be private neighborhood organizations to prevent this How? Here's a way for me to speculate in this: - Buy properties around the edge of said private neighborhood, set up all kinds of highly offensive things all surrounding the neighbourhood. - Buy up properties in said neighbourhood as the price drops until I can get effective control of said organization. - Remove the aforementioned offensive things and wait for property prices to rice again. > All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path. Which impacts policing needs, fire services, traffic, public transport, garbage collections, postal services, and many others. It is also likely to have indirect effects on the local housing market, and through that an effect on local schools, hospitals and others. There's no such thing as just a couple of office buildings when it comes to urban planning.

gumby 11y ago

The government manages the externalities. For example, the sheer volume of office build out between the Shoreline and Rengstorff exits from 101 essentially installed a plug on 101 between those exits (really from Embarcadero to Moffet). MV council prefers plans that address that more. (The same problem, in reverse, happened when RWC tried to allow wetlands to be replaced with housing without improving the freeway infrastructure, which would simply have led to a clog not only for the residents but for everyone passing through). Another monoculture risk is to allow one company to use too high a percentage of the real estate...meaning if they go under or move there's suddenly a glut of office space with all its own trickle down problems as well. It's in the city's interest try to have a diversity of employers. It's good for the general infrastructure as well. (BTW I suspect your redneck area nevertheless had building codes at least for electrical and fire codes).

cromwellian 11y ago
Point #1 won't be fixed by trying to interfere with smart growth, instead, Google will end up leasing more office space spread around MV and traffic will continue to grow worse. Those companies are going to continue to hire more and more employees. Either the politicians actually work with them to come up with smart plans for growth to relief traffic pressure, or they can stick their heads in the sand hoping it'll go away. There have been proposals IIRC to improve freeway infrastructure around MV, but those were shot down by anti-growth members of the council. In fact, the council often votes to make traffic clogs worse: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/06/19/cycle-track-to-replace-expressway-ramp- http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/06/19/cycle-track-to-repla...
- hollerith 11y ago
  You seem to believe that the government of Mountain View has no control over the number of employees commuting into Mountain View, but isn't restricting the total square footage of office space in MV is a fairly effective way of doing that? (Google leasing more office space around MV would be cancelled out by other employer's leasing less office space.)
seanp2k2 11y ago

michaelochurch 11y ago

The Bay Area has a lot of trophy spouses who cover up the shame of unemployability by "serving" on the sorts of boards and councils that have the power to go hard-core NIMBY and fight progress and make it impossible to develop a housing density appropriate to the demand and job market. They do this because the artificially low housing availability spikes prices. They don't actually care about their communities; they just want to keep their houses priced at 5 times what they're actually worth. Of course, the breadwinners in those families (who finance the NIMBYs) get some karma when their trophy spouses (the ones pushing the NIMBY rules that prevent new development) give them stupid kids who'll require expensive and emotionally exhausting string-pulling in order to get them into schools. It's not enough, but it is something.