ot: a special fuck you to the mayor of brisbane, ca

[Darrin Ward]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

[Nathan Davis]

Do you want a Palo Alto, because, that's how you get a Palo Alto.

-- Nathan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Peter Colijn]

Brisbane residents would probably be delighted to have a Palo Alto. $2M 'fixers' etc.

[Michael Schumann]

As the (sole?) representative of Brisbane on this list I guess I have to respond. The developer's proposal would triple Brisbane's population and place the majority of our population far from what we now identify as Brisbane.  That is a lot to ask of a community.  While the developer's proposal adds housing, it still will have 15,000 more workers then it can house. The city's alternative proposal is much less intensive and will have fewer workers; to meet it's housing commitment Brisbane is looking to add housing closer to the current town (though at a much smaller scale).

I admit that if I look at this from a regional standpoint we should build lots of housing on the baylands. But why do that when San Francisco will provide the housing :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM 'Nathan Davis' via SF2G <sf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Do you want a Palo Alto, because, that's how you get a Palo Alto.

-- Nathan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Elliot Schwartz]

They could cede the northern part of the land to SF and/or Daly City if all they're worried about is getting out-voted or supporting housing on the outskirts of town. It's pretty close to existing neighborhoods in those cities.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Michael Schumann <mic...@schumann.com> wrote:

As the (sole?) representative of Brisbane on this list I guess I have to respond. The developer's proposal would triple Brisbane's population and place the majority of our population far from what we now identify as Brisbane.  That is a lot to ask of a community.  While the developer's proposal adds housing, it still will have 15,000 more workers then it can house. The city's alternative proposal is much less intensive and will have fewer workers; to meet it's housing commitment Brisbane is looking to add housing closer to the current town (though at a much smaller scale).

I admit that if I look at this from a regional standpoint we should build lots of housing on the baylands. But why do that when San Francisco will provide the housing :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM 'Nathan Davis' via SF2G <sf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Do you want a Palo Alto, because, that's how you get a Palo Alto.

-- Nathan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Schumann]

A representative of the developer suggested that to me as a possible solution. The housing development would be directly adjacent to the new housing going in at the Schlage lock site in SF right next to the Bayshore Caltrain station.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:43 PM Elliot Schwartz <elliot....@gmail.com> wrote:

They could cede the northern part of the land to SF and/or Daly City if all they're worried about is getting out-voted or supporting housing on the outskirts of town. It's pretty close to existing neighborhoods in those cities.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Michael Schumann <mic...@schumann.com> wrote:

As the (sole?) representative of Brisbane on this list I guess I have to respond. The developer's proposal would triple Brisbane's population and place the majority of our population far from what we now identify as Brisbane.  That is a lot to ask of a community.  While the developer's proposal adds housing, it still will have 15,000 more workers then it can house. The city's alternative proposal is much less intensive and will have fewer workers; to meet it's housing commitment Brisbane is looking to add housing closer to the current town (though at a much smaller scale).

I admit that if I look at this from a regional standpoint we should build lots of housing on the baylands. But why do that when San Francisco will provide the housing :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM 'Nathan Davis' via SF2G <sf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Do you want a Palo Alto, because, that's how you get a Palo Alto.

-- Nathan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Darrin Ward]

to be honest i think its irresponsible for a city to be so willing to add commercial development but unwilling to add substantial housing to support it.  and the audacity of the mayor to say that sf should or will provide the housing is kind of fucked up imho.  especially as we are in the middle of a major housing crisis.  brisbane is just adding further flames to the fire.

i get that brisbane wants to remain a small town and keep the small town vibe.  and yes it would triple the population.  i know.

the problem is that every town wants to be a small town.  palo alto wants that.  burlingame wants that.  mountain view wants that.  etc, etc, etc.

this is how you get a housing crisis.  and brisbane is just contributing to the problem.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Michael Schumann <mic...@schumann.com> wrote:

A representative of the developer suggested that to me as a possible solution. The housing development would be directly adjacent to the new housing going in at the Schlage lock site in SF right next to the Bayshore Caltrain station.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:43 PM Elliot Schwartz <elliot....@gmail.com> wrote:

They could cede the northern part of the land to SF and/or Daly City if all they're worried about is getting out-voted or supporting housing on the outskirts of town. It's pretty close to existing neighborhoods in those cities.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Michael Schumann <mic...@schumann.com> wrote:

As the (sole?) representative of Brisbane on this list I guess I have to respond. The developer's proposal would triple Brisbane's population and place the majority of our population far from what we now identify as Brisbane.  That is a lot to ask of a community.  While the developer's proposal adds housing, it still will have 15,000 more workers then it can house. The city's alternative proposal is much less intensive and will have fewer workers; to meet it's housing commitment Brisbane is looking to add housing closer to the current town (though at a much smaller scale).

I admit that if I look at this from a regional standpoint we should build lots of housing on the baylands. But why do that when San Francisco will provide the housing :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM 'Nathan Davis' via SF2G <sf...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Do you want a Palo Alto, because, that's how you get a Palo Alto.

-- Nathan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Brisbane-pushes-huge-development-without-housing-9237957.php

“We’ll provide the commercial,” Lentz said this week. “San Francisco will provide the housing.”

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Viet-Trung Luu]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Darrin Ward <dmw...@gmail.com> wrote:

to be honest i think its irresponsible for a city to be so willing to add commercial development but unwilling to add substantial housing to support it.  and the audacity of the mayor to say that sf should or will provide the housing is kind of fucked up imho.  especially as we are in the middle of a major housing crisis.  brisbane is just adding further flames to the fire.

i get that brisbane wants to remain a small town and keep the small town vibe.  and yes it would triple the population.  i know.

the problem is that every town wants to be a small town.  palo alto wants that.  burlingame wants that.  mountain view wants that.  etc, etc, etc.

this is how you get a housing crisis.  and brisbane is just contributing to the problem.

I don't disagree, but I think it's a state governance problem. TIL that California's constitution says "Except with approval by a majority of its electors voting on the question, a city may not be annexed to or consolidated into another.".

Of course you end up with city governments looking out for themselves and their constituents, in the narrowest sense, but that's kind of their job (which isn't to say that Brisbane's mayor isn't being a dick^W^Wridiculously insensitive). Without anyone to force more sane regional planning, what you get is a pretty classic tragedy of the commons.

(I'd also add that SF does NOT supply housing, given that many more people commute into SF than out. While this kind of worked with the classic urban/suburban split, it really doesn't work if all the suburbs also want to have more jobs than housing ... and I suspect many "suburbs" are now worse proportionately than SF.)

[Robert Griesmeyer]

It's too late.  They should have started back in the 80s. 

[Matthew Blain]

You're going to have to describe how this would hurt Brisbane's existing people. If there's housing *right next to* the site, then it's not because of the new population being nearby. Since the site is a mile away from the current 'town', it's not going to change the character of the town, other than maybe a little more traffic to the post office (which is about the only business there). 

What is it asking the current citizens to do, when you say 'asking a lot'? Are they paying more taxes because of it? 

[Patrick Kitto]

http://sfist.com/2016/10/10/sf_supervisors_threat_to_annex_bris.php

HAHAHAHHAAHhahahahahahaHHAHAHHAHA.

suck on THAT, Mayor Lentz!

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.