News on Residential Development Projects in Santa Clara County

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

A few thousand? C'mon, each unit generally have 2-3 or so people, there are at least 20k to 30k residents that moved into North San Jose the last 7-8 years, and there is still another 1,500 units being built for another 4k residents. Century Towers in North 1st Street popping out 400 units, that's 1000 residents. Cottle is building 3,000 units, you're looking at another 9k residents. Downtown currently constructing 1,200 units, so that's another 3k residents. Japantown currently with 600 units under construction, another 2,000 residents coming. Berryessa BART station with 3,000 units under construction, and knowning the Berryessa area it'll be at least 4 residents to each unit for roughly 10k residents. All these residents add up.

Pipeline in the very near future? 2,200 units at Comm Hill Phase 2. Another 400-500 units in Japantown at the Corp Yard. Another 1,000 units incoming at Midtown. Another 300 units on the Alameda. And Downtown? Another 2,000 units (Silvery towers, Post tower, Julian tower, Marshall Square, and NSP).

A few thousand residents my ass.

We are a city spread out over 200 square miles, with infrastructure maintenance backlogs of hundreds of millions, not to mention a fight to the death with the local hard-headed, albeit stretched to the max, police force.

To address the issues, it is jobs that we need to build, to collect taxes from. Housing brings no benefits or money unless there are accompanying heavy retail actions.

To advocate for SJ to have no new housing DOES NOT prevent other Santa Clara County towns from building more housing in their own towns. Instead, all they want is just to build offices while poo-pooing housing in their towns, and yet everyone gives them a pass for it.

Meanwhile San Jose have to shoulder all the housing burden, and yet everyone just piles on San Jose as if it's our fvcking responsibility to be babysitters to the new residents of the Valley. Get outta here.

The issues with the police force have nothing to do with the size of SJ, by area or by population, and everything to do with the decisions of political and labor union leadership over several decades; it is complicated, it is frustrating, but it has nothing to do with population growth in the city because it could have happened with a smaller city or with stagnant population growth.

Besides that one metric--the SJPD--which is not actually related to the population size, you haven't addressed by what metrics recent population growth has stretched infrastructure and services thin. You've left us to accept your argument, to take it on your word that it is true, without presenting supporting evidence.

I offer the counter-argument that each new resident, given that SJ is built out, has a low marginal cost because almost all the schools and sewers and sidewalks and libraries and parks have already been built and any truly new infrastructure or services is, generally, paid for by the developer; in a built-out city of 1 million, each additional resident costs very little.

Meanwhile, you haven't offered a logical rebuttal to the argument that, because of its geographic size vs neighbors, to advocate for no new housing in SJ is to, in effect, advocate for severely limited housing growth in the county as a whole. One city accounts for 55% of the population because it is the bulk of built land in the county. No neighbor even comes close. And what matters is the result of a policy, not the shiny facade of intent.

And you keep tacking on this asterisk about BMR housing. There is neither the money nor political will to build any large quantities of BMR housing; as such, BMR housing will never make a statistically significant dent in the housing shortage. To add it on to your argument, then, does nothing to change the effect of the original argument.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

The issues with the police force have nothing to do with the size of SJ, by area or by population, and everything to do with the decisions of political and labor union leadership over several decades; it is complicated, it is frustrating, but it has nothing to do with population growth in the city because it could have happened with a smaller city or with stagnant population growth.

Besides that one metric--the SJPD--which is not actually related to the population size, you haven't addressed by what metrics recent population growth has stretched infrastructure and services thin. You've left us to accept your argument, to take it on your word that it is true, without presenting supporting evidence.

I offer the counter-argument that each new resident, given that SJ is built out, has a low marginal cost because almost all the schools and sewers and sidewalks and libraries and parks have already been built and any truly new infrastructure or services is, generally, paid for by the developer; in a built-out city of 1 million, each additional resident costs very little.

No maintenance? Each resident costs very little intially, but will add up more over time. Residents also bring very little to the table, except as spenders for a local retail node. Why are we not advocating for more jobs which costs little and bring a lot to the table?

And the example of SJPD does matter. If San Jose were a rich city, we would not have this fight with SJPD. If we had the kind of tax coffer, proportionately, that Palo Alto has, we would not be having this problem.

We also have $900 million backlog of transportation repairs. We have slow Fire and Ambulance response time. Our libraries are opened 2/3 of the week.

Meanwhile, you haven't offered a logical rebuttal to the argument that, because of its geographic size vs neighbors, to advocate for no new housing in SJ is to, in effect, advocate for severely limited housing growth in the county as a whole. One city accounts for 55% of the population because it is the bulk of built land in the county. No neighbor even comes close. And what matters is the result of a policy, not the shiny facade of intent.

We are 55% of the population, yet the housing we build is disproportionate to that number. Why are the other 45% not building their share?

And you keep tacking on this asterisk about BMR housing. There is neither the money nor political will to build any large quantities of BMR housing; as such, BMR housing will never make a statistically significant dent in the housing shortage. To add it on to your argument, then, does nothing to change the effect of the original argument.

I am tacking this asterisk on to point out that I do support mass market rate housing. But once again, I don't support them in San Jose itself until our city has enough funds to maintain infrastructure, and enough jobs to provide for the city coffers. If we have that kind of wealthy budget, then by all means, I'm all for more housing.

Look, you want housing built as much as possible. I want the same, except in the case of San Jose. Until San Jose has a better municipal budget to support additional residents, I think it's best to limit my city's burden. We all have our viewpoints, and they're not going to change. At this point it's like beating a dead horse

[darkeconomist]

Who isn't advocating for more jobs in San Jose? Who? Of course jobs would be great for San Jose. But, we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face.

I keep responding to you on housing in SJ because residents' opinions matter and because your proposal is counter-productive and your basis flawed.

Again, the SJPD issue is not relevant because it happened, not because of the size of the city, but because of decades of decisions by politicians and labor leaders and could have happened to a much smaller or much larger city. City size simply is not relevant.

Most suburban cities have some kind of backlog of transportation repairs because low densities require more long-term outlay of funds for upkeep yet do not have the tax base to fund those long-term outlays. And San Jose is very suburban in built form. But this is a matter of the density of the city, not the absolute size of it. Too few residents per square mile for the amount and type of infrastructure. This could, and does, happen to smaller and larger cities.

As for emergency services and education, it is the same as for the transportation backlog. Too few taxpayers. Just enough to need full coverage (comparatively, a rural location is sparse enough to need fewer services per capita), but hardly enough to keep that level of service fully funded.

And your asterisk about "Residents also bring very little to the table, except as spenders for a local retail node." That shouldn't be discounted. Those are jobs. Maybe not high tech jobs, but those are still people being employed. And its people paying sales taxes for those goods and services. More residents = more retail, more retail = more jobs and sales taxes, more jobs and sales taxes = good for San Jose. Maybe it isn't ideal, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good.

Now, you bring up Palo Alto. You know why PA is so wealthy as a city? Not because of the jobs, per se, but because of the millionaires and billionaires who run or built the companies which create those jobs. When your average income is at PA levels, of course the city is going to have deep pockets. Look at mountain view by comparison. It is by no means a wealthy city. It is fortunate, for sure, but much of it is pretty average, really. Some of it is downright poorer than the SJ average, and it shows up in upkeep of those neighborhoods. A skewed jobs:residents ratio isn't all champagne and limousines.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

Yes but that concern is parochial. From the perspective of increasing housing affordability and reducing commute times, housing construction anywhere in the Silicon Valley is a good thing...

Yes, but from the perspective of density & quality of life, only housing demolition is a good thing.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes, but from the perspective of density & quality of life, only housing demolition is a good thing.

Ummmmm...what?

/sarcasm

To be clear, though, are you saying that a high QoL requires very low density residential, that increasing density, even incremental increases, are necessarily bad for QoL?

[neutrino78x]

I will always support more housing being built. Especially if it is really dense and near public transit. That is important for the future. We don't have room for more single family monolithic homes.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Ummmmm...what?

/sarcasm

To be clear, though, are you saying that a high QoL requires very low density residential, that increasing density, even incremental increases, are necessarily bad for QoL?

I read that as demolition of old properties to make way for new high-density developments. There are many pockets throughout the Silicon Valley that would benefit from starting over from scratch.