The Google Bus Issue Triggers Insightful Urbanist Talk

As the issues around the Google bus controversy continue to swirl, thoughtful and insightful comments rise to the surface.

One of the great things about the urbanist community is that high-profile social issues will always elicit cogent and insightful comments from active urbanists. It’s partly that a cohort of good critical thinkers has become attached to urbanism and partly that urbanism is a good solution to many contemporary social ills.

To be clear, urbanism isn’t a panacea to every issue that might need improvement, but it’s one of a half-dozen building blocks that can make the world a better and more sustainable place in the 21st century.

So I’ll return to the Google bus issue and sample some of the best thinking that has bubbled up around it.

Of course, the North Bay doesn’t yet have its equivalent of the Google bus issue. Because of the historical happenstance of Silicon Valley continuing to burgeon while the North Bay’s equivalent, Telecom Valley, stagnated, the North Bay doesn’t yet have as much of the young demographic segment looking for an urban lifestyle.

But the North Bay is a good place to live that is eager to remain economically vital, so will soon attract the young and affluent who are roiling other areas of the Bay Area. The Google bus issue should be studied in the North Bay so we can be smarter when our time comes.

On the Google bus issue, several commenters have noted that San Francisco and Oakland aren’t alone in their failure to anticipate and to prepare for the coming flood of young adults looking for an urban lifestyle. Fingers are being pointed at Peninsula and South Bay communities for failing to facilitate the type of development that would have been attractive to techies.

I agree with the finger-pointing. A more far-sighted residential program around the Silicon Valley would have defused much of the Google bus issue. In an odd coincidence, I found myself in conversation over the weekend with someone who owns a large chunk of land in the South Bay which now has a low-density land use. The landowner is intrigued by the possibility of creating a higher-density, urbanist use, but finds daunting the prospect of tackling the public, city, regional, and state issues that would be raised.

Others have concurred with me that blaming the tech buses is akin to blaming the messenger. As Michael Coyote noted on Twitter, “I can totally understand why people are mad, but who does it help of you are mad at a tech worker versus some NIMBY?” While NIMBYism certainly had a role, I’d also add CEQA and ponderous land-use processes to the list of wrongdoers.

But perhaps the most interesting thinking was put forth by Noah Smith in an article published on Quartz. Dusting off the work of Henry George, a long-dead economist from San Francisco, Smith suggests that a property tax that focuses more on the land, especially the land that has an increased value because of public facilities such as street and sewer, is more fair than the current system which focuses on appraised value.

Early in my urbanist reading, I came across a suggestion that property taxes should use a sliding scale, with taxes in the urban core based solely on the value of land, taxes in surrounding rural land based solely on the value of the improvements, and taxes in between based on a combination. My memory is that it was James Howard Kunstler who put forth the concept, but I haven’t yet come across it in my rereading of his work.

The Henry George and the sliding scale concepts are largely similar. And I see value in both. But I also see points of discomfort in both.

As currently constructed, property taxes are intended to ensure that a uniform standard of public facilities and services are available across the community, while also keeping cities solvent. Those are valid goals that must be preserved. Modifying the property tax system to encourage urbanism while maintaining the first two goals would be a tricky endeavor.

Also, one of the greatest benefits conveyed to land isn’t public improvements, but zoning. If we’re to tax the property owner for having a public street across the front of his land, taxing him for higher zoning seems reasonable. Indeed it seems only fair. Changing zoning from rural to residential can be a windfall of a million dollars or more per acre to the property owner. 

But what if a city does rezoning on its own initiative, perhaps as the result of a new General Plan, and not at the request of the land owner? And what if it’s likely to be a decade or more before the land is developed? Is the property owner liable for the higher tax burden over that decade, even if it pushes him toward bankruptcy?

Lastly, I’ve often argued that many of our current institutions, including property taxes, lending practices, judicial rules, etc. have been inadvertently slanted toward drivable suburban development and that urbanism would do fine if we could just rebalance the rules to be closer to a free market. To now argue that we instead must bias the rules toward urbanism is philosophically uncomfortable to me.

None of this is intended to reject the Henry George concept, only to note that it would be a deep pool with tricky currents that should entered only after careful thinking and planning, neither of which are strong points of our political system.

I’ll look at more Google bus thinking in my next post.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated. Please comment below or email me. And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Dave Alden is a Registered Civil Engineer. A University of California graduate, he has worked on energy and land-use projects in California, Oregon, and Washington. He was also the president of a minor league baseball team for two seasons. He lives on the west side of Petaluma with his wife and three dogs. The blog that he writes can be found at Where Do We Go from Here. He can also be followed on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and VibrantBayArea.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

The Mighty Groove January 29, 2014 at 11:45 AM
Mr. Alden seems unclear on the Google bus issue. The reason that these young techies are commuting from SF to their jobs in the Silicone Valley is because they want to live in San Francisco - not because there is not enough housing available in the south bay. They want to experience San Francisco's urban lifestyle, and would not be giving up there Mission district lofts for some new apartments in Santa Clara, even if they were available. A better solution would be to move the jobs to San Francisco, and many companies are just doing that.
Gavin G. Kirk January 30, 2014 at 12:28 AM
Envy and warmed over 60's sentimentalism is the root cause of this issue. It amazes me that so many people would rather chase off one of the few successful companies in the area than trying to attract the very tax payers this area so desperately needs. Pete Seeger is dead, get over it!
jezra January 30, 2014 at 02:25 PM
The Google bus problem is caused in part by the lack of unified public transportation. How many different public transportation systems does a tech employee need to use in order to get to work?
Frankie2011 February 06, 2014 at 05:09 AM
GET THE "LINGO" CORRECTED PLEASE. NEW URBANISM!! New Urbanism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Neotraditionalism" redirects here. For other uses, see Neotraditional. Seaside, Florida New Urbanism is an urban design movement which promotes walkable neighborhoods containing a range of housing and job types. It arose in the United States in the early 1980s, and has gradually informed many aspects of real estate development, urban planning, and municipal land-use strategies. New Urbanism is strongly influenced by urban design standards that were prominent until the rise of the automobile in the mid-20th century; it encompasses principles such as traditional neighborhood design (TND) and transit-oriented development (TOD).[1] It is also closely related to regionalism, environmentalism and the broader concept of smart growth. The movement also includes a more pedestrian-oriented variant known as New Pedestrianism, which has its origins in a 1929 planned community in Radburn, New Jersey.[2] Market Street, Celebration, Florida The organizing body for New Urbanism is the Congress for the New Urbanism, founded in 1993. Its foundational text is the Charter of the New Urbanism, which says: We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice.[3] New Urbanists support regional planning for open space, context-appropriate architecture and planning, and the balanced development of jobs and housing. They believe their strategies can reduce traffic congestion, increase the supply of affordable housing, and rein in suburban sprawl. The Charter of the New Urbanism also covers issues such as historic preservation, safe streets, green building, and the re-development of brownfield land.
Wire February 11, 2014 at 12:53 AM
You see one modern URBANISM shopping center you seen them all they copy the same architecture and landscape designs to save money Dave? It's ugly don't you think?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »