Save the last orchard in Santa Clara! (Sunnyvale: appointed, condos)

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Yep, I agree with you on all points, esp. about the NIMBYs; although renting can be a rip off as well. I don't think they will ever build enough housing to meet demand. Unless there's a major earthquake or a Great Depression, demand in this area is always going to outstrip supply.

I'm not sure why people think a major earthquake will affect demand more than supply, I'm actually imagining the opposite, with huge hikes in rental prices for a year while property is being repaired. Jobs will not suddenly disappear, as far as housing prices are concerned the housing boom of the late 80s peaked in 1990 almost a year after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and prices fell similar to many east coast markets 1-10% over the next 5 years. A major earthquake with significant damage will probably lead to temporary rent spikes, the first 2 priorities for people to live are food and shelter, and people are not suddenly going to find jobs elsewhere to provide for them, they will eat through savings in order to get through hard times.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

I'm not sure why people think a major earthquake will affect demand more than supply, I'm actually imagining the opposite, with huge hikes in rental prices for a year while property is being repaired. Jobs will not suddenly disappear, as far as housing prices are concerned the housing boom of the late 80s peaked in 1990 almost a year after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and prices fell similar to many east coast markets 1-10% over the next 5 years. A major earthquake with significant damage will probably lead to temporary rent spikes, the first 2 priorities for people to live are food and shelter, and people are not suddenly going to find jobs elsewhere to provide for them, they will eat through savings in order to get through hard times.

You may be right. But for others, a major earthquake could be the straw that breaks the came's back and cause folks to leave. Remember, the Loma Prieta quake was not the big one that is being predicted.

But I'll grant you it's a hard thing to predict. All I know is if there's a major earthquake (larger than the 1989 quake), most likely, I'm outta here.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

demand in this area is always going to outstrip supply.

If this is inevitable, then what would it hurt to preserve a few of what little pieces of open space/history that are left? Kind of makes a concrete jungle bearable for the humans (and others) that inhabit it, no?

A few local organizations that work towards this goal:

Our City Forest - Home

Veggielution Community Farm

Full Circle Farm

OPENSPACE | Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District


BAREC was lost after a long fight...now it's a bunch of 1 million dollar townhouses next to Valley Fair/Santana Row. Don't seem to be selling any quicker than the infamous condos at SR itself.

Progress?

SaveBAREC - Keep Public Land Public!

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

If this is inevitable, then what would it hurt to preserve a few of what little pieces of open space/history that are left? Kind of makes a concrete jungle bearable for the humans (and others) that inhabit it, no?

Yeah, it's fine, as long as the areas which are developing are being developed with a very high density. If I had it my way I would ban new single family homes from developed areas in the nine county Bay Area. All new developments would have to be dense, with a capacity of at least 300 units/families.

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yeah, it's fine, as long as the areas which are developing are being developed with a very high density. If I had it my way I would ban new single family homes from developed areas in the nine county Bay Area. All new developments would have to be dense, with a capacity of at least 300 units/families.

I'd love this solution - the price I'd get when I sold my house would be astronomical. How do we go about getting something like this implemented? I could use the extra $500k (I figure that's how much prices would increase in 5 years for a 40-year-old 3 BDRM house after such legislation was passed).

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yeah, it's fine, as long as the areas which are developing are being developed with a very high density. If I had it my way I would ban new single family homes from developed areas in the nine county Bay Area. All new developments would have to be dense, with a capacity of at least 300 units/families.

Oh, and "single family homes" also includes townhouses.

[otterprods]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Who owns the orchard? I think that is key.

If I owned the orchard, I'd say, if you want to save it, here's my selling price.

Exactly.. but it looks like no one answered, or even responded. Just a bunch of arguing over the density of development that should go there. It should be as dense as the market demands, or better yet some very rich resident can by it and preserve it as a tree museum. (which would be a lot better than dense housing, IMO, just not very likely)

And what about the corn palace, isn't that still there in Sunnyvale?

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by otterprods

Exactly.. but it looks like no one answered, or even responded. Just a bunch of arguing over the density of development that should go there. It should be as dense as the market demands, or better yet some very rich resident can by it and preserve it as a tree museum. (which would be a lot better than dense housing, IMO, just not very likely)

And what about the corn palace, isn't that still there in Sunnyvale?

Property rights? Freedom of choice? Anathema! The Eco-Soviets have spoken!

But seriously, I will wager anything that the developer *wanted* to build more units on the parcel, but was stymied by NIMBYs and "downzoning".

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by marcopolo666

I'd love this solution - the price I'd get when I sold my house would be astronomical. How do we go about getting something like this implemented? I could use the extra $500k (I figure that's how much prices would increase in 5 years for a 40-year-old 3 BDRM house after such legislation was passed).

Yes I know you're being sarcastic, but I'm serious, there are only so many single family homes, including townhouses, that you can build in a given city before you need to start building more densely, and we have reached that point in the bay area especially in sf but in sj as well.

Plus,I grew up in a single family home in a suburb and I hated it. Apart from having a bad experience growing up because I was unpopular and a beta male, there was also the inconvenience of living in such a place without a car. Think about it: if you want to go to anything useful, you'll have to drive,or when you're a kid, take transit. Museums, high tech movie theaters, amusement parks, all are far away. Whereas they are very convenient to reach if you're a kid downtown. There's a miniature golf facility in the town where I grew up, but the bus doesn't go there. From the house where I grew up, you have to drive there, or walk for an hour or more (it's a few miles away) to get there. I guess the majority thinks that is an acceptable sacrifice to buy a house in a good school district, but I didn't enjoy it.

Plus who cares if you don't have a yard or you share the building with other condos? Isn't the goal, when you plan to have kids, to have a safe place with enough bedrooms so each kid has their own? I don't see why a single family home or townhouse is a requirement for raising children.

[marcopolo666]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all - I would love the extra $$$ and a plan like that would sharply drive up prices for single family, detached homes and in a short period of time.

Now I will be sarcastic : Well, it seems like a good idea to pass a law like that because you didn't like your experience as a kid. I'm sure everybody will think catering to your opinions is the exact right thing to do, and the law will pass with over 90% of who-ever voting for it.