“Stanford has tried many times to get approval to develop their lands without any luck. Just go back and review the meetings with Santa Clara county and the demands that both the county and Palo Alto have made. Do you think that they preferred to go to Belmont or buy an apartment complex when they've had over a century of erecting buildings on their property? It's political Kabuki by the governmental agencies.
I think they were wise in finding alternate strategies, especially the Oak Creek acquisition.”
—
I don’t know the entire history of negotiations with the county and city. I don’t know what sort of demands and/or concessions were made. My understanding is the city (and county?) are pushing Stanford to use Stanford land for 70% of their new housing needs and the other 30% would be from land Stanford acquired/acquires in surrounding cities. (It might’ve been 25% in the past but I think it changed to 30% last year.) Does my understanding sound correct? Is that the hang-up? If so, Stanford’s only committing 70% of Stanford proper for its housing needs and 30% would be shifted to surrounding communities, no?
Those surrounding communities are already afflicted with tremendous NIMBY-ism. The surrounding communities are already suffering from outrageous unaffordability. You got folks working here to service local labor demands, including at the university, while commuting from the likes of Sacramento and Merced counties, all because of insatiable greed.
So, now more Stanford folks will be moving into Oak Creek Apartments and less folks in the community will be able to afford to live where they work, more folks moving out to Sacramento and Merced, more folks commuting terrible distances, more environmental costs, less development of land to increase density for what’s truly needed as labor demands continue to increase along with the growing housing shortage.
Everyone wants to complain about the Rule of Mammon for trivialities like sports when the real issues affecting exponentially more lives are given a blind eye.
Nope, I’m not persuaded. Oak Creeks shouldn’t be reserved for Stanford so that Stanford proper can be an oasis of undeveloped land while shifting labor and housing burdens onto others in another form of NIMBY-ism.
As far as their property is concerned, if you want to add another room to your house, or construct an addition or whatever, you’re gonna have to go to the city for the necessary permits. You can risk building without permits but that’s unwise. In short, there are all sorts of constraints on real property — even if it’s yours. In other words, I‘m unpersuaded.
And full disclosure — I‘m not an alum, I’m just a local, a former university employee. I understand I‘m not preaching to the choir.
Rant over.
Last edited: 2 minutes ago
I think they were wise in finding alternate strategies, especially the Oak Creek acquisition.”
—
I don’t know the entire history of negotiations with the county and city. I don’t know what sort of demands and/or concessions were made. My understanding is the city (and county?) are pushing Stanford to use Stanford land for 70% of their new housing needs and the other 30% would be from land Stanford acquired/acquires in surrounding cities. (It might’ve been 25% in the past but I think it changed to 30% last year.) Does my understanding sound correct? Is that the hang-up? If so, Stanford’s only committing 70% of Stanford proper for its housing needs and 30% would be shifted to surrounding communities, no?
Those surrounding communities are already afflicted with tremendous NIMBY-ism. The surrounding communities are already suffering from outrageous unaffordability. You got folks working here to service local labor demands, including at the university, while commuting from the likes of Sacramento and Merced counties, all because of insatiable greed.
So, now more Stanford folks will be moving into Oak Creek Apartments and less folks in the community will be able to afford to live where they work, more folks moving out to Sacramento and Merced, more folks commuting terrible distances, more environmental costs, less development of land to increase density for what’s truly needed as labor demands continue to increase along with the growing housing shortage.
Everyone wants to complain about the Rule of Mammon for trivialities like sports when the real issues affecting exponentially more lives are given a blind eye.
Nope, I’m not persuaded. Oak Creeks shouldn’t be reserved for Stanford so that Stanford proper can be an oasis of undeveloped land while shifting labor and housing burdens onto others in another form of NIMBY-ism.
As far as their property is concerned, if you want to add another room to your house, or construct an addition or whatever, you’re gonna have to go to the city for the necessary permits. You can risk building without permits but that’s unwise. In short, there are all sorts of constraints on real property — even if it’s yours. In other words, I‘m unpersuaded.
And full disclosure — I‘m not an alum, I’m just a local, a former university employee. I understand I‘m not preaching to the choir.
Rant over.
Last edited: 2 minutes ago
Last edited:
