This week's Best of Local Web comments
The gems from the comments sections of the Merc, SJ Spotlight, and SJ Inside.
On access to unions for private businesses
Trinity Patriot 6/23
A private business, even if open to the public, is private property that is treated much like the proprietor's personal residence with respect to constitutional law. This was not a partisan decision. The justices merely sustained property rights expressly protected by the US Constitution.
If anything, the dissenting justices attempted to ignore every American Citizen's constitutional property rights to justify their activist agenda of promoting Unions. This is exactly why a Constitutionally "conservative" majority is critical to the survival of our Nation and the freedoms protected by her Constitution. The notion of overriding the Constitution simply to advance fleeting Social agendas and the whims of whoever currently holds power in the other branches of government, is abhorrent and anti-American.
On housing concerns from the public
aurelia sanchez 6/17
It would be nice if the property taxes in Santa Clara County would be lowered for new homeowners who live in the property they buy. There are things the County, City and State could do to keep people in the state. The property taxes for someone buying a home are way too much. The state could build homes for families that can be at reduced prices. If you inherit property eliminate the current law that taxes the heck out of you. Encourage home ownership by building townhomes, condos for first time buyers but also make sure there are parks, daycare centers, and good schools nearby. We waste so much money in not promoting quality of life for many working families in our city that people get tired of paying high rents and making investors rich when there is no parking, no outstanding schools within walking distance for working families etc. In summary, help the working class and don’t just build housing but plan housing that makes people want to stay.
SJRes 6/17
“The poll, conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and associates, randomly surveyed 819 Santa Clara County voters…”
The question in figure 1 asks about San Jose so why would SVLG open the poll Santa Clara County voters? San Jose Spotlight should conduct its own polls instead of promoting the agenda of the region’s most powerful business lobbying group.
Prophet 6/18
Another poll. Another survey. Joint Taskforce. Commission. 5-year plans.
We need action not more polling and studies of the homelessness problem. The unhoused population is among the most studied group in the Bay Area yet we still lack the creation of new jobs and affordable housing. Yet we’ve thrown millions of dollars at nonprofits who claim their goal is to end homelessness and other band aid programs while the building of affordable housing proceeds at a snail’s pace.
On property management in San Jose
Prophet 6/18
The City should use some of that unused land to provide safe parking and sanctioned encampments for the unhoused. Better yet why not build affordable housing on the suitable properties? Much better uses than the status quo.
transparency and accountability are needed in San Jose 6/20
Be careful because the last time the Real Estate Development team offered a list of city-owned properties for Tiny Home community siting – they somehow realized, after D2 community members complained, that 7 or so parcels on that list in D2, were put on there by “mistake.”
Which was just not true, it was all political, and resulted in removing those parcels via a late night memo, and they just put the formerly homeless community under an overpass in a working class community. Sad sequence of events.
On the Bay Area housing problem
ViaforMe 6/23
Here's why: We're a PENINSULA and Silicon Valley is a modern day gold rush attracting engineers and entrepreneurs from around the globe. If you want a comfy government job with affordable housing run away.
Steven 6/23
You will never be able to build enough homes in the Bay Area to satisfy the demand. Not unless it suddenly goes the way of Detroit for some reason. Most people in the world would love to live in the Bay Area or the LA area. Great weather, world-class open space and recreation, many of the best job opportunities in the world, top schools, easy access to top theme parks and ski resorts, easy access to beaches and stunning coastal views, etc.
By most people, I mean the majority of people in places like Central America, South America, Africa, India, the Middle East, China, and many parts of the United States (especially those with extreme weather, limited career opportunities, bad schools, limited social opportunities, etc).
The Bay Area has built an insane amount of housing to try to satisfy the demand. It used to be mostly orchards and agriculture, but over the years it's been turned into one of the bigger metropolitan communities in the entire US (probably in the top three with LA and NY when you include the entire Bay Area, which you should do since the Bay Area is really just one massive interconnected community).
Trinity Patriot 6/22
Greater Los Angeles has the TV & movie industry and it sprawled to accommodate housing for the 500,000+ workers who support that industry.
There are over a million tech workers supporting the Bay Area's Tech Industry. The Bay Area needs to decide what it wants to be. You can't be the nexus of a major industry while refusing to allow the infrastructure growth to support it. That includes housing.
Frank N 6/22
I can't believe I'm launching the same criticism of reporter Louis Hansen twice in the same day! 'said Apartment List chief economist Igor Popov' -- cite your source! 'The analysis' -- what analysis? Cite your source!
This article says the obvious. But it updates the obvious with a limited set of data suggesting the situation isn't improving, or isn't improving fast enough, or is getting worse. That needs more thorough analysis. Report on that. At least the article raises awareness that housing is still an issue.
No one is forcing people to live in the Bay Area. It's a beautiful, diverse, culturally rich area. But the growth was driven by something else. Silicon Valley. Starting in the 1960s, Silicon Valley became the foremost incubator of technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship in the country, perhaps even in the world. Regional Advantage, by Annalee Saxenian, explains a lot of that. This phenomenon has such high value that people are willing to suffer crowding, traffic, housing, and commutes to participate. The support workforce pays a higher price, forced to endure mind-numbing long commutes.
Some people and organizations are thinking about what the best choices for the future are. They're unwilling to take the ostrich approach and say don't let anyone else in. The recognize the unique value of Silicon Valley culture and want to emphasize it rather than fight it. Progress has happened:
(1) high-density housing near transit. While the naysayers babble that no one would choose to live there, they enjoy vacancy rates near zero.
(2) victory over Mountain View and similar places which refused to allow housing (e.g.) north of US101. Now we see housing starting to develop where people work.
(3) more multifamily housing, including an expanding downtown.
On California eviction moratorium
DAVID S. WALL 6/21
The sands in the free money hour glass are slowly and painfully running out.
Municipal, County and State housing departments are looking as incompetent as ever.
Personally, I do not want anyone to lose their homes but-I don’t get to write life’s rules.
For those that pay rent and can no longer do so-whatever the reason…Leave California while you can.
Homelessness is only going to get much, much worse.
Bring back the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).
Recall Governor Newsome.
David S. Wall
HB 6/21
The sooner it ends, the better for everyone. Let the tenants and landlords work out their contract. They are the two parties most likely to come to a mutually beneficial agreement — both have a vested interest. The “state” had no business interfering with these contracts. The interference helped no one, but it has and will hurt a lot of people.
San Jose
Danny Garza 6/18
Dear Community,
If we don’t have enough Water, why build.
And Google – where is that water going to magically come from.
What kind if practical Math is that.
Let’s see, hmmmm
1. People who do not have enough Water
2. Water District says we do not have enough water supply
3. San Jose says Keep Building
So…
People + no water + more people = a dried up Valley with water for those that can afford it.
It is my opinion that we stop Building until the Water issue is solved.
I have always liked the idea of seeding clouds to get Rain.
It works for me.
Let’s see, hmmmm
People + Cloud seeding = rain for the whole area(not just the Santa Clara Valley)
That’s my opinion.
In Community Spirit,
Danny
Luann Garcia 6/18
I agree with Danny Garza. It’s ridiculous to keep building when the supply of water is at risk. The homeless problem should be addressed first. Why not use some buildings that had been developed years ago and never used like office buildings along Central Expressway. They can be revamped for a different purpose than was originally conceived by some short-sighted developer. Convert them to housing for the mentally challenged who need some care to ensure their meds are being taken, etc. Those people were here first and have a right to the water unlike new people descending on unaffordable housing where there is insufficient supply of water to support so many people. The city planners aren’t planning, they are just chasing the dollar.
Karen 6/18
Amen to all of the above. The programs that were set up to aid those struggling to pay bills only allocated so much per month and when they funds are exasperated you have to try again the next month. It’s not easy for elderly whom prob don’t even have internet to figure out how these resources are available
On San Jose water usage regulations
DAVID S. WALL 6/23
Governor Newsom wants to spend Billions to pay-off, back-owed rents to low income renters.
The Billions to to pay-off, back-owed rents to low income renters is discriminatory per se and is unconstitutional preferential treatment of certain peoples under the law instead of “equal treatment under the law for everyone.” (14th Amendment-USA Constitution)
The Billions should be spent on potable water infrastructure.
Again, Recall Newsom with extreme prejudice!
David S. Wall
On the San Jose flea market
HB 6/21
Give them an inch and they will take a mile. While I would like to see everyone come out with a “win,” going on a hunger strike is an asinine idea.
Time for the Bumb family to reconsider what they are willing to put up with. It would appear that they will have to suffer the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” even when they try to do the right thing. If they spend millions to help the vendors, they get vilified. If they spend nothing, they get vilified.
Not Suckered 6/21
A hunger strike is crazy, just like the contemporary sense of entitlement. The property owners can do as they wish, and anything they give the vendors is a gift. The “market” area of the new development cannot hold all the vendors, and a multi-level market, aside from other costs, is not sensible, because patrons will be increasingly reluctant to climb to higher floors to do that kind of business. It’s probably Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Santana Row stuff that’s intended, or it will be changed later to more offices or housing.
Econoclast 6/21
Part I: La Pulga Ground Rents
The Berryessa Flea Market Vendors Association’s (BFVA) should organize for a City-owned alternative to the Bumb-owned market. The City could and should take on the responsibility of insuring the permanence of this historically, culturally and economically vital institution. Using City-owned, or City-acquired land would yield significant income for the City itself and sustainably maintain and foster thousands of La Pulga-related jobs, while keeping costs low for upstart and start-up small businesses in the City and the region.
How much could the City earn in taking over El Mercado de Pulgas (La Pulga)? Just consider what the Bumbs charge hundreds of small businesses–mainly Hispanics/Latino families–in rents. On a monthly basis, the average-sized space available is 320 square feet with an average monthly rent, excluding the fee for electricity, of $646. This is for use of the space on only five days per week (Wednesday-Sunday), while La Pulga opens to the public on only four days per week (Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday).
To make the argument simple, and based on my experiences at La Pulga, I estimate that half of any current flea market acre used for vendor stalls (22,000 square feet) is occupied by the stalls themselves while the other half (22,000 square feet) is occupied by walking paths for visitors and service roads. Thus, a total of 69 average-sized vendor spaces (320 square feet each) will fit on one acre. At the current average monthly rent of $646 per vendor space, a single acre would yield about $44,430 per month, or $533,160 per year, in ground rent. This excludes what the Bumbs take in for parking, electric fees, walk-in visitor fees and numerous other sources of Pulga Pulga rents.
The vendor area of La Pulga is presently about 15 acres according to recent reporting recent reporting. A 15-acre parcel dedicated to a permanent location for the flea market would–at current rental rates–yield about $8 million in ground rents on an annual basis, a considerable sum. With improvements in facilities, better planning and use of land, and an expanded work week, even more could be earned on such a publicly-owned plot of land.
Part II: Locating a Permanent Pulga
For years, e-commerce has progressively eroded demand for commercial retail property, i.e. the traditional brick and mortar sites that house retail shops. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated that erosion as those sheltering in place relied heavily on on-line purchases and home deliveries. This has significantly reduced the relative value and viability of commercial and retail property, in particular.
This provides an excellent opportunity for the City to acquire one or another of the decreasingly-profitable large shopping malls–or parts of those properties–that have been hard hit as permanent sites for El Mercado de las Pulgas (La Pulga) that is threatened with destruction by developers and the complicity of a developer-owned City Council.
Some candidates for acquisition, in whole or in part, through cost recovery and/or eminent domain could be:
1. Eastridge Mall (113 acres)
2. Great Mall (103 acres)
3. Valley Fair Mall (70 acres)
4. The Plant (55 acres)
5. Westgate Mall (44 acres)
6. Oakridge Mall (29 acres)
In addition, the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds have 167,000 square feet under roof (3.8 acres), 20 acres of lawn and paved outdoor space and 40 acres of parking for a total 63.8 acres. Some portion of this land could be dedicated to a permanent Pulga operated by the City of San Jose.
One or another of these sites could permanently host La Pulga, which should be protected, preserved and promoted as a robust and thriving historical, commercial and cultural institution, as well as an important venue for small business incubation and development. With surplus revenues, the City could finance any number of other City initiatives, especially affordable housing.
This is something which the Berryessa Flea Market Vendors Association (BFVA) and all those who love La Pulga should consider and fight for. The essential task facing the Association is more and better organizing of existing vendors to make the BFVA an even more decisive force in this battle. Don’t let the backroom deals worked out between the Bumbs and the likes of David Cohen deter, distract or divert your attention from the organizing tasks ahead.
!Viva la Pulga!
Prophet 6/22
This is private property. That point can’t be ignored. The owners of the property are free to enter into deals and new ventures which do not violate existing contractual obligations with the current vendors. While the owners don’t have a legal obligation to the soon to be displaced vendors struggling to make a living for their families a moral obligation exists to provide a soft landing spot for the vendors who have occupied the land for decades. Further representatives for the vendors should have been invited to the negotiation table to offer input and insight to proposed solutions as they are the group most affected by the final outcome. While I laud the passion and advocacy shown by the vendors one must question the decision to go on a hunger strike at this juncture of the process and the perceived notion that it will further their goals. While the Council will likely approve the plan the City also has a moral obligation to help these small business owners who have contributed so much to San Jose find that soft landing spot.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity.
Photo taken by Sam Churchill.