In a global economy, business must be able to attract and retain top talent to be competitive. Yet with the median home costing $794,000 in Santa Clara County and $840,000 in San Mateo County, many middle-class workers are priced out of our market. Or they make a grueling commute for a few years, and then find jobs closer to where they can afford to live. Call it the "revolving door" of hiring. We've seen the quality of life in our communities erode as teachers, firefighters, police officers, and even our own adult children move away.Given this obvious need, perhaps housing would be a better use of the land that many on our beloved council want to donate to the indigent York family. Talking just pure dollars and cents, would that benefit the city more than a massive multi-million dollar gift to a private corporation?
Increasingly, various communities have latched onto the idea of "smart growth," which according to Smart Growth Online "has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses" than the sprawl that typifies much of the development of the past half century. By comparison, smart growth development is less costly to maintain, especially when the costs incurred by environmental and social problems are also considered. Some smart growth developments take the form of "infill" development, using underutilized land already serviced by many city services and thereby maximizing the investment of those services.
What would be the long and short term benefits of providing housing in an area surrounded by shopping, entertainment, employment and mass transit? I would think that such benefits could be quantified, especially in relation to our strapped city budget. I'd hope that when the city staff comes out with their recommendations on this plan, that housing was at least considered as an alternative.
3 comments:
It's the right approach - one look at the townhomes at Tasman/Vista Montana near North First will tell you that this will work.
An easy trip down Lick Mill or Lafayette takes you to shops and groceries.
With the many employers in the area, you can walk to work.
There's no way that a stadium for the 49ers can possibly compete with housing plus light-industrial/R&D/Office.
I agree that having more affordable housing is a plus. However if the city were to take all available land and have developers build housing, city services would be strained and taxes would have to increase to accomodate these new residents or city services would have to be cut back. Smart growth is the answer not just covering empty lots with housing.
I don't believe the area is currently zoned for housing, and I'm not sure whether or not the zoning can be changed.
But I think that if the City did permit development, they could levy developer fees to cover infrastructure and service improvements. And they would also collect more in property taxes. According to the information I've seen about the stadium, the stadium might not be liable for property taxes.
But I agree with the previous poster -- any development in this area should be smart development. I certainly don't think a stadium qualifies as smart development, and I'd say the same thing about poorly planned housing.
A well-planned housing development, on the other hand, is an idea worth exploring.
Post a Comment