Is it Google's fault that the city is not allowing more housing to be built to keep up with demand?

Is Google is one of the corporations behind the proposed ruining of urban and suburban neighthoods with residential highrises and no onsite parking (SB 827).

Is it the city's fault that Google embarks on mass hiring campaigns (thousands of new employees) with little regard for the availability of housing?

How on EARTH can anyone try to evade or deny that direct causal responsibility, when firms like Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn (ignoring the past history of silicon valley when the leading firms that built this region's reputation geographically diversified their growth to spread the jobs around in other states) now insist on hiring tens of thousands at once near their home offices. To consider anyone but these firms as chiefly responsible for this situation is to bury one's head in the sand and cultivate a selective blindness (which is also self-serving, since very few people not connected to or beholden to those firms share that peculiar blindness).

And to "Google SB 827, a resident of Sylvan Park:" I don't know if Google (the firm) supported that state proposal. But I do know that every individual I've seen expressing personal support for it has been part of the same demographic group I referred to above -- those who were among (or are connected to or beneficiaries of) recent years' mass hirings. The same people who complain about the housing shortage and high prices, even as they themselves are widely perceived by the rest (the large majority) of Mountain View's population to be a part of the problem they are complaining about.

The CEOs calling for SB 827 stated in their supporting letter that they want it for workers (from around the world) that they may wish to hire - not for present employees. But I understand that newcomers want new nearby housing even if it is overlooking everyone else's backyard. The CEOs themselves live out of the line of fire. SB 827 will not reach Los Altos Hills.

It's hard not to laugh out loud at the "demands" by Silicon Valley Rising. I'm pretty sure that Google developing the 20ac (home to industrial yards and vacant lots) right around the transit center in downtown SJ, is a dream come true for the city planners. The planners will be aligned with Google's vision and this project will not be derailed.

It's not Google's fault that homeowners with frozen property taxes go out of their way to block new housing from getting developed. The solution isn't for Google to simply accept that behavior. It's to support legislation on the state level to take away the power to block housing that cities have been abusing and start building more housing. Anyone against that should be willing to give up Prop 13 and actually pay the cost that comes with blocking new housing.

My recommendation is to summarily dismiss all requests that are put in the form of demands.

The solution is for either

a) Google to relocate some of its businesses to towns/cities with job housing ratios/ below 1.
b) Google and other giants to put some serious money into public transportation infrastructure in the bay area

It is in Google's best interest to support the local communities. No-one, not even the entitled millennials, will want to live in a tech ghetto

Property taxes are supposed to fund infrastructure. Building more housing creates a larger tax base with which to fund such infrastructure projects.

@YIMBY

RIght now property taxes barely provide sufficient support for public schools, let alone major public transportation infrastructure. And with the outstanding pension obligations on the horizon, a bigger tax base will only assist in paying down the debt. There's a snowflake's chance in hell that more housing will generate a surplus of a $100 billion dollars (the supposed investment needed for infrastructure on the peninsula).

Property taxes barely provide for what we have now because so many properties have been held long-term by the current owners taking advantage of Prop 13 to have their taxes subsidized by newer homeowners. Build more new homes and they'll pay property taxes on the current actual cost of homes, not the value in 1990, and that will go to funding these projects.

80% of property tax revenue comes from the land value. What we really need to do is to build more land. That would really help.

This is really misleading to say Prop 13 is reducing revenue. It has caused other taxes to be increased, so that has made up for potentially lost revenue. It has helped cause Property values to rise, and so that has increased the revenue from property taxes under Prop 13. Undo Prop 13 and you might see a drop in land values. It depends how you undo it.

Google is benefiting from a lot of the features of Prop 13. That's how they buy LLP's that hold title to various buildings without triggering a rise in taxes. Then they hog many such buildings and drive up property values due to scarcity. They aren't even using all the buildings they buy. They just speculate on them. Sometimes they buy them with investments from the officers of the company, using their private money. It all drives up property values.

Don't try to explain real-world complexities to "YIMBY," who plainly prefers a simplified world-view wherein "homeowners with frozen property taxes" [UNTRUE] go out of their way to block new housing from getting developed" [UNTRUE]. As the timeless plea goes, "don't confuse me with facts." Dogma is easier, and doesn't "tax" the mind.

Another resident, you're really splitting hairs if you are considering 2% growth in taxes when home values are skyrocketing to not be "frozen."

Take a look at the comments basically every article on this site. Teacher housing: blocked by homeowners. Homeless housing: blocked by homeowners. Housing in North Bayshore should have been approved half a decade ago, blocked by homeowner-landlords like Margaret Abe-Koga.

It's telling that in your post about "facts" you didn't actually post any.

Google is planning to build near the Caltrain terminus. So can anyone ask why Caltrain doesn't increase the number of trains from Gilroy to San Jose?

There is space for more homes in Morgan Hill and Gilroy. In fact there is space for more tech businesses in Morgan Hill and Gilroy. There should be a lot more trains to serve MH and G.

caltrain does not own the tracks from san jose to gilroy. afaiik they have a contract that allows them to run 6 trains a day.

There is plenty of room in the county and bay area for housing without stacking and packing in MV. But complacent MV homeowners are about to get highrise neighbors parking on streets and blocking their driveways.

@827, might you say you are in favor of more housing, but not in the area near you? If only there were some clear way to refer to that attitude...

Current residents have a responsibility to ensure that enough housing exists so they don’t get displaced. Google will build it; just end this 2 story height limit BS. It’s insanity.

@Kyle

That would require some amount of altruism. Current residents would tear everything down and salt the Earth on their way out if it meant not having to see a single apartment complex be built to house anyone else while they're living here.

@YIMBY,

Grow up and stop virtue signaling. You support more apartments because you believe it is in your own self interest and because you hate homeowners after drinking the leftest Kool-aid that blames suburbia for all the world's evils.

@Che

And I'd ask you to stop projecting. Just because you're selfish doesn't mean that everyone else is too. I believe that it is in the interest of the majority of society that housing be affordable, and that we accomplish that by building densley near job centers in order to reduce sprawl, pollution, and our impact on the environment.

Having to deal with the housing crisis first-hand, I would never want to subject someone else to this. "Views" aren't worth putting a generation into poverty for.

@YIMBY,

There are no "job centers" on the Peninsula. After four decades of corrupt politicians selling zoning exemptions to sleazy developers the Peninsula is a jumbled up mess of tacky tilt-wall industrial, pretentious office, cheap $#!+ apartments, townhouses, and McMansions all the way from South City to Morgan Hill.

@Me

Caltrain does not own the tracks north of San Jose either, but the contract allows them to run many more than 6 trains a day. Not a good excuse.

Seems like it is time for the contract for south of San Jose to be renegotiated. The tracks are there and making more use of them seems to be in everyone's best interest.

@Che

There are no job centers on the peninsula? Did Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park float off into the void overnight?

Caltrain owns its tracks between San Francisco and San Jose, but operates on UPRR track between San Jose and Gilroy.

@Yimby

Everyone loves to tout the environmental benefits of density but, as with any system, there are trade-offs. Density also results in" more pedestrian casualties, urban heat island effects and waste; poorer ecosystem quality; loss of privacy and direct sunlight; and reductions in physical and mental wellbeing".

Just own the fact that you're acting out of self-interest. No need to fly the altruistic flag. No-one is buying it.

@How about some balance

Never said that high density urban living was perfect in all ways, but good city planning can mitigate the downsides.

Did you stop caring about school funding once you got out of the school system? Is everything in your life only about you and not the bigger picture of the society that you live in? Did you know that you can benefit personally from having a healthy and prosperous society? Get some empathy.

YIMBY said:

"Did Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park float off into the void overnight?"

No they didn't but neither did Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Campbell or Milpitas. There is no "jobs center". The "jobs center" concept is just something invented by real-estate PR hacks to make you think buying a million dollar micro unit is a good investment. Like calling swamp land ocean view property.

There is quite clearly a concentration of jobs in this area, so much so that a common argument from anti-growthers is that tech companies should spread out to other areas that don't have as many jobs. You seem to be implying that since multiple cities in the area all have lots of jobs, there are no job centers, because of course it's impossible to have multiple separate job centers close together or a large regional job center spanning multiple cities.

@Yimby

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. Density has its own downsides that are not as easily mitigated as you suggest. There are trade-offs involved. People in dense living situations live shorter lives and do not fare as well mentally. It is not all as rosy as you would like to imagine. It might help to read some of the research.
It's not a case of being more empathetic. It's a case of intellectually grasping the complete ramifications of such an urban planning decision.

@Balance

Never said the mitigations were easy, but the facts are that our population is growing and migrating to cities and we need to build more densely to alleviate the high housing costs. Your generation shouldn't have had children if you didn't want to have to deal with this, but it's too late now.

The tracks between San Jose and Gilroy are actually just one track. For both directions. That's what limits the number of trains. But there is a plan to add a 2nd track. It's a small matter of funding. VTA signed the deal with UPRR in 2004 that gives them the right to run more trains per day, if they complete the 2nd track. Some talk says high speed rail funding will now be used to add that 2nd track. Interesting twist of events, 14 years later.

San Jose has plans to create for the first time a jobs center for Silicon Valley, in downtown San Jose. That kind of says there isn't one currently. There are actually more jobs in Palo Alto than there are in Mountain View. Sunnyvale and Cupertino have quite a few too. What they all lack is interest from developers to build housing before the offices. The developers want to keep the vacancy rate below 4% and still charge high rents, or they won't build new housing.