Slashdot Mirror


Google Fights Bay Area Housing Prices With Pre-Fab Housing (siliconvalley.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Bay Area Newsgroup: With rental costs skyrocketing and homes out of reach for many, Google has hit on a solution that may help it attract workers to the crushingly expensive Bay Area. The tech giant plans to buy 300 units of modular housing to serve as temporary employee accommodations on its planned "Bay View" campus at NASA's Moffett Field, according to a source familiar with the plan. Experts heralded the move as not only good for Google, but as a potential template for others to follow as the high cost of construction combined with expensive real estate make affordable housing hard to come by... Modular housing has the potential to be "a real game changer" for the Bay Area housing crunch, said Matt Regan, senior vice-president of public policy at the Bay Area Council, a business group of which Google is a member...

The Bay Area boasts many sites suitable for modular rental housing, undeveloped so far largely because the cost of traditional building is too high for the rent the facilities could generate, Regan said. With prefab housing costing up to 50 percent less, "all of a sudden sites like that become economically feasible to develop," Regan said.

304 comments

  1. That makes me MAD! by OYAHHH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Moffett Field is government owned property. Google has absolutely no right to it. It is home to a significant population of burrowing owls, which are an endangered species.

    Now these people are gonna turn it into a frigging trailer park for silicon valley trash.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:That makes me MAD! by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google has the right to it, because the government signed a sixty year lease handing it to them to use as they see fit.

      That being said, it won't be long until you start seeing JP style coffin hotels start springing up. The main problem with bay area housing and the lunacy surrounding it is NIMBYism at its worst - the majority of places will build high density to handle surging populations and rising rents, but the city fragmentation (the 'bay area' is at least 30 mostly independent cities all packed together each with its own muni code and rules and housing authority) means no significant high density housing will ever get approved (tons of projects are shot down because the locals want to 'protect their own property values', which is a codeword for 'we dont want poor people living near our homes').

      So instead we get horrible sprawl, horrible commutes, and the price-out of the support service economy since nobody can afford to be a barista on the peninsula. Google's solution here is to straight up build a company town because mountain view wouldn't let em start building high density apartment blocks

    2. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a flying fuck about some stupid owls?

    3. Re:That makes me MAD! by Beau1080p · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in Hayward, just across the bay from Facebook and Google. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 43.6 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.

      Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.

      And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.

    4. Re:That makes me MAD! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Moffett Field is government owned property.

      It is federal property, and thus city and county zoning laws can't be enforced, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs can't just stop everything from being built. Google is building there because it is the only place they can build.

      The South Bay is miles and miles of low-rise sprawl, with plenty of room for new housing, new businesses, etc. But it is very difficult to build anything. Liberals hate to hear it, but NIMBYism is a major cause of inequality in America. The lack of growth and sky high prices reduce opportunities for low income people who can't afford to live there, while handing millions to the already well off in the form of artificially inflated property values.

      Thank you Google for these 300 units, but SV really needs 300,000.

    5. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? 300 isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to what's actually needed.

    6. Re:That makes me MAD! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Moffett Field is...home to a significant population of burrowing owls, which are an endangered species.

      Before this military airfield was leased to Google, how did your burrowing owls like the 129th Rescue Wing of the California Air National Guard, operating the MC-130P Combat Shadow and HH-60G Pave Hawk aircraft?

    7. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha, you said "who" and "owls"

      LOL

    8. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a stupid idea, build HSR to a couple places 40 or 50 miles away that people might like to live, done and done.

      Its basically what I do now, I work in Seattle and commute via rail from a different county (Im sure our county and little town like the fact that the money I make in Seattle gets spent here), the let down is a lack of connector buses at train stations drag my commute out longer than it could be, but the trade off is worth it - what our place is worth wouldnt buy squat near Seattle, triple might buy something comparable in terns of house size and neighborhood.

    9. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have more of a right to be here than Google.

    10. Re:That makes me MAD! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem?

      No,

      300 units is like throwing a single drop of water into a lake. And, according to one story I've read, the price Google is paying for this works out to $100,000 per unit. For a bunch of pre-fabricated shit boxes that will look like a slum hotel within a year.

    11. Re:That makes me MAD! by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      Google has the right to it, because the government signed a sixty year lease handing it to them to use as they see fit.

      So this lease obviated the Endangered Species Act? Google could frack for oil there because fuck you we have a lease?

      I suspect someone is being naive. Not sure if it's you or Google, but this doesn't add up.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    12. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should build a 100,000 units of prefab panel apartments if they want to make a real difference - Soviet style. At least those are much stronger and will survive wind and earthquakes better than American clapboard trailers.

    13. Re:That makes me MAD! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Google has the right to it, because the government signed a sixty year lease handing it to them to use as they see fit"

      Contracts cannot violate laws nor negate them. Thus, the Endangered Species Act stands.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now these people are gonna turn it into a frigging trailer park for silicon valley trash.

      Older prefabs unfortunately were lower quality and thus have a negative connotation/association with trailer parks. Newer prefabs can go up to 5000 sq. ft in size (mine is 2800 downstairs finished, 1600 upstairs unfinished right now) and are about 1/4-1/3 cheaper than stick-built homes. Yes - quality is on par with stick-built homes as well. And yes - mortgage companies know about the higher quality modular/pre-fab homes market and have "construction loans" available during the building process which gets converted to a conventional loan at completion.

      Downside to modular/prefab homes - they are generally unpopular in suburban areas. Why? Varies by neighborhood - newer neighborhoods developers typically stake claim and nobody else may build the homes; existing neighborhoods HOAs typically do not allow them. Live somewhere without either of those issues? I'd encourage you to check out a prefab/modular.

      What was lacking from the summary, but was in TFA, was the fact Google is ordering modular apartment buildings - not modular home sites. This makes much more sense - 300 homes is a drop in the bucket ... 300 apartment buildings though - different discussion.

    15. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Japanese have zoning figured out.

    16. Re:That makes me MAD! by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.

      Quite the opposite.

      I don't know what the current number is but 4 years ago Google had almost 12,000 people in their Mountain View headquarters. That's almost one-sixth of the entire population of the city, from just one company, in an area that's not equipped to handle that many people. Fuck that.

      The bay area has been absurdly overpriced single unit zoning for decades. If they don't like it, they could have started building up. Homeowners, as they always do, said "no, That'll reduce my property value and increase congestion unles we build up the BART and I don't want that either." The whole "I got mine, FU" blows back on them? Great. I hope they build the ugliest prefab houses and it halves the home values in the area.

    17. Re:That makes me MAD! by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      ...the price-out of the support service economy since nobody can afford to be a barista on the peninsula.

      Shouldn't that part, at least, be self-correcting? If there is demand for coffee then the price should rise until the baristas can be paid enough to afford the rent?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    18. Re:That makes me MAD! by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It is federal property, and thus city and county zoning laws can't be enforced, and the NIMBYs and BANANAs can't just stop everything from being built.

      I can understand the Nimbys, but why would people with Asian ancestry object to stuff being built?

    19. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modular House != Manfactured (Trailer) House. Modular homes actually tend to be better quality site built homes. They need to be built to drive transport.

    20. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die! Nothing artificial about fighting for your own pleasure & wealth. Butcher off your economic enemies, whomever and whyever they are ... and live fat. The powerful do as they please, and the weak do a they must! Bootheel to the face, snowflake and fuck you drooling lib.com and your stupid, lazy poverty stricken proles .

    21. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

    22. Re: That makes me MAD! by cunina · · Score: 1

      In theory, you're correct. And that might explain why there are so many "opportunities" to tip in the Bay Area. Every single food truck, coffee shop, and non-chain fast food restaurant puts tip jars (both real and digital) in your face. I don't blame them, and I usually tip, but it's a manifestation of the wage pressures due to NIMBYism.

    23. Re:That makes me MAD! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are temporary. It's in TFS. You didn't even have to read TFA.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    24. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thos is what happens .hen tou get a lazer brained population really into ignoring to or being aloof to the problems abd corruption in a country while thy rake in the millions. Sooner or later, your fantasy land comes back to reality. This is just prefabricated fantasy.

    25. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burrowing owl soup?

    26. Re:That makes me MAD! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I was here first and I don't want you in my back yard.
      --
      Signed,
          Geronimo

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you said "who" and "owls"

      LOL

      And flying fuck

    28. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SillyCON valley and the worlds worst NIMBYism. In 1945 most of Japan was burnt to the ground. Now Tokyo has 40 million people and 525 train stations. The bay area is stuck in 1960 with horrific NIMBYism and plaines-roaming native americans had a better standard of living and solved housing more smartly than the SillyCON valley NIMBYists of today. If you were to try and fail at SimCity, SillyCON valley is it.

    29. Re:That makes me MAD! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Not all of those 30 independent cities are wealthy. East Palo Alto is a good example, it is 80% black or Hispanic.

      I have this idea that one of the poorer cities in Silicon Valley should allow anyone to build skyscrapers (or buildings of whatever height they please). And the city would collect real estate tax from the new buildings, with half going to the city, and half distributed as cash payments among the city's current residents (not new residents who move in after the law is passed).

      Alaska, which is oil-rich, gives each citizen a yearly payment from oil revenues. Small Silicon Valley municipalities, which are land-value-rich, could do the same. NIMBYs might not like their neighborhood turning into a forest of skyscrapers, but getting a steady continuous income in return would shut a lot of them up.

    30. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand what NIMBYs have to do with liberals. In the UK NIMBYs come in all political colours depending on where and what the development is.

    31. Re:That makes me MAD! by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      . Liberals hate to hear it, but NIMBYism is a major cause of inequality in America

      Liberals have been arguing against NIMBYism for a long time. NIMBYism isn't ideologically aligned - here in Florida, the Republican counties are more likely to be NIMBYs than those dominated by urban Democrats. And California's Democratic governor is among those taking the strongest stand against that SF's residents are doing.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    32. Re:That makes me MAD! by jcr · · Score: 1

      Google has absolutely no right to it.

      This turns out not to be the case. They have a contract.

      silicon valley trash.

      Fuck you too, sunshine.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    33. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have two problems; Earthquakes and the fact that no-one wants to live in the shadow of a 20+ story building. Even if you did build upwards like Ontario/Toronto and surrounding cities as in Canada, you still end up with back-to-back traffic at rush-hour. If workers weren't able to afford family homes, they wouldn't move over. So they are jamlocked.

    34. Re:That makes me MAD! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Well, building skyscrapers in an area that has a very active seismic fault nearby might not be the best of ideas. The cost of earthquake fortifying is neither cheap nor a guarantee. As outlined here, people on upper floors might experience up to 4g of acceleration during a major quake. As the engineer in the article states "Perhaps that's how it works in a real estate deal, but there are some things you can't negotiate. You can't negotiate with God or Isaac Newton."

    35. Re: That makes me MAD! by Entrope · · Score: 1

      If a city like that gives up half its tax revenues from a major high-rise, how will it pay for schools/police/whatever for half the people in the high rise?

      I've been told that there isn't that much "waste, fraud and abuse" to cut -- that governments are pretty efficient at delivering services. Why should high-rise residents need so much less in civil infrastructure than current residents?

    36. Re:That makes me MAD! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      the locals want to 'protect their own property values', which is a codeword for 'we dont want poor people living near our homes').

      ]
      Very true. Even at face value, it means "We want the prices of the homes we own to go up, even if that makes it impossible for first-time buyers to buy one." In other words, "Screw you, Jack, we got ours!"

    37. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo bipolar dude. You posted the exact same comment further down as AlanObject and now you live in Fremont. Somebody mod this douche bag down!

    38. Re:That makes me MAD! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The main problem with bay area housing and the lunacy surrounding it is NIMBYism at its worst

      Oh yeah, it's the people who don't want their community to go to shit who are the problem.

      no significant high density housing will ever get approved (tons of projects are shot down because the locals want to 'protect their own property values', which is a codeword for 'we dont want poor people living near our homes').

      People don't want large developments full of poor or not-so-poor people moved into their neighborhood.

      So instead we get horrible sprawl, horrible commutes,

      Adding more population density will only make commutes worse, because there will be more people on the same roads. The answer is not to pack more people into the same location. The answer is to make some other location great, rather than shitting up the Bay Area even worse.

      Mind you, I am pro-gentrification, because it means that people move out into other communities and spread culture to them. The city has all the culture it can eat already, the rest of California could use some.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:That makes me MAD! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So this lease obviated the Endangered Species Act? Google could frack for oil there because fuck you we have a lease?

      What causes you to imagine that siting a cluster of temporaries out on the tarmac is going to threaten any endangered species? It's already a big fucking parking lot. The site survey was performed by NASA and they don't seem to have a problem with Google's plan.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:That makes me MAD! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Homeowners, as they always do, said "no, That'll reduce my property value and increase congestion unles we build up the BART and I don't want that either."

      I wouldn't want to pay to expand BART either, because it is grossly mismanaged in basically every way possible. While I believe in public transportation, I don't believe in refusing to hire people to make it look like there's a personnel crunch which results in paying so much overtime that it would be cheaper to hire more staff.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:That makes me MAD! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's not just the Japanese, it's basically every other country. When I first played SimCity, I found it horribly unrealistic: how on Earth could you build a city that segregated places people live, places people work, and places people go for recreation and required you to drive between them? Then I visited the USA and discovered that real city planners were doing this. Outside of the densest areas, US cities seem to combine the worst aspects of ubran and rural living: high population density and long driving distances to everywhere you'd want to go to regularly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    42. Re:That makes me MAD! by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      While I do not know the history of the owl species or airfield, it is possible the owl found sanctuary at the closed airfield and thrived after having been displaced by human encroachment elsewhere. We're great at fucking over other species.

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    43. Re:That makes me MAD! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's a translation problem. In English, a liberal is someone who subscribes to Enlightenment ideas relating to equality and freedom. In American, it means 'someone I don't like' (confusingly for English speakers, American grammar, like Japanese, has different forms depending on the speaker, and the word 'conservative' has the same meaning when spoken by a different set of people).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem?

      No,

      300 units is like throwing a single drop of water into a lake. And, according to one story I've read, the price Google is paying for this works out to $100,000 per unit. For a bunch of pre-fabricated shit boxes that will look like a slum hotel within a year.

      But it could be that drop is the last straw.

      Now, as for pre-fab looking like shit, well, that's merely a matter of the quality of pre-fab chosen. Just remember that something that isn't pre-fab can also just as easily look like shit. There was a modular hi-rise built somewhere where the modules were concrete units that just slipped into a supporting framework, IIRC. The finished product looked better than some of the more classically designed and built hi rises.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    45. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.

      Quite the opposite.

      I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway. (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)

      The bay area has been absurdly overpriced single unit zoning for decades. If they don't like it, they could have started building up. Homeowners, as they always do, said "no, That'll reduce my property value and increase congestion unles we build up the BART and I don't want that either." The whole "I got mine, FU" blows back on them? Great. I hope they build the ugliest prefab houses and it halves the home values in the area.

      Seems like the simpler solution in this case is for Google to build an office building where it's workers live, not in an absurdly high priced area where only a small number of its employees live. Not all employees have to be under one roof, after all.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    46. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Geronimo,

      GTFO off my lawn. I was here first.
      ---

      Signed,
      TkkTkk

      Recent studies reveal that the American Indians were no earlier than the third set of people to populate the Americas, in a wave dating from around 10,000 years ago and overran the existing populations. Pacific Islanders and an Asiatic group were earlier, dating between 13,000-20,000 years ago. IIRC, genetic analysis of the peoples of north and south america confirm the presence of at least one earlier people that were absorbed by the current "original" population. I am also positive that further study will reveal a richer past heritage in the Americas, and that all current groups can only claim ownership because they have eliminated their predecessors.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    47. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.

      You think all poor people are poor because they're irresponsible, and your big evidence is "I've seen poor people that drive a newer car than mine"? I mean, what, you couldn't even find a vague and misleading statistic from the Heritage Foundation to back that up?

    48. Re:That makes me MAD! by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.

      do you have data that supports this thesis ?

    49. Re:That makes me MAD! by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      The US has multi use zoning though.

    50. Re: That makes me MAD! by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Because there are more of them in a smaller area. They aren't going to add roads, or DMVs or what have you, the fire dept don't need to grow at the same rate as the population if they're now in apartments. You'll need a few different trucks maybe and a handful more fire fighters, not one fire station per 100 residents or whatever.

    51. Re:That makes me MAD! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Nowadays we know how to make skyscrapers safe in earthquakes. Skyscrapers continue to be built in San Francisco, Tokyo, and many other earthquake-prone cities.

    52. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.

      Quite the opposite.

      So are you saying they are poor because of responsible behavior?

      Yes, I'm just trolling so you can ignore this message.

    53. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Liberals are against NIMBYism when it is in someone else's BY.

    54. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many swaths of these little cities that are zoned for circa 0.5 sq ft of building per sq ft of lot. It does not take a skyscraper to quintuple the density -- even a four story building with underground parking is a big jump.

    55. Re: That makes me MAD! by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      I didn't do the second posting. I have no idea who Beau1080p is and why he duplicated and did weird edits to my original post.

    56. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.

      You think all poor people are poor because they're irresponsible, and your big evidence is "I've seen poor people that drive a newer car than mine"? I mean, what, you couldn't even find a vague and misleading statistic from the Heritage Foundation to back that up?

      Nice editing, let's leave off the important qualifier from the quote which I explicitly put there to address the inevitable nonsense crap like your strawman.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    57. Re:That makes me MAD! by kenh · · Score: 1

      And the city would collect real estate tax from the new buildings, with half going to the city, and half distributed as cash payments among the city's current residents (not new residents who move in after the law is passed).

      You really want income-redistribution on the city level?

      You really want to segregate the "current residents" from the new residents?

      You don't seem to understand, increasing the tax base without increasing the services required results in tax savings, but I fail to understand why the new residents will consume community resources at a lower-level than the current residents - they won't have school-age children? they won't be victims of crime? Their apartments won't catch on fire? Etc.

      --
      Ken
    58. Re: That makes me MAD! by Entrope · · Score: 1

      They'll put more wear on the roads, probably use more public transport (which is typically subsidized), need as much police support, and presumably need as many schools for their kids. The fire department is a pretty small part of a city budget.

    59. Re:That makes me MAD! by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      I started to write a longer explanation but the stupid started making my head hurt. The more concise answer is that at one point environmental movements where heavily tied to progressive politics in the US. One such environmental movement of the 80's and 90's opposed all nuclear development. The term NIMBY in the US rose in popularity at that same time to label home owners who also opposed nuclear plants in their towns, though for different reasons. Through some long strange contortions US progressives are routinely mislabeled as liberals in this country. There for NIMBY's are liberals.

      Now where did I put my aspirin?

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    60. Re:That makes me MAD! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      "Income redistribution" generally means forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. What I'm suggesting would simply mean the "poor" choosing to fully use a valuable resource which they already own.

      Nobody would be segregated. You wouldn't even know who got the payments unless you looked at their bank account.

      Set the tax rate for the new building higher than the existing tax rate, and you will have enough fund to cover municipal costs, as well as an extra payment. (Actually, you don't even need to pass a law for this to happen - California's Prop 13 means that existing real estate has artificially depressed tax rates.)

      Some municipal costs also decrease with higher population density: less roadway area and utility length per inhabitant to maintain, less crime because more people are on the street, and so on.

    61. Re:That makes me MAD! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      My dad's first dorm in the 70s were "temporary" barracks they put up after WWII for returning GIs.

      They finally tore them down ~2005 to make way for a new building.

    62. Re:That makes me MAD! by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      The site survey was performed by NASA and they don't seem to have a problem with Google's plan.

      This is the most uptight, litigious place on Earth. This scheme will get injuncted before Google can shack up its first H1-B. We're you born yesterday?

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    63. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should hand them some bootstraps and it'll all get sorted out...

    64. Re:That makes me MAD! by Pembers · · Score: 1

      BANANA (in this context, anyway) = "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone."

    65. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What "qualifier"? This?:

      (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)

      That doesn't change anything about the meaning of what you were saying. As far as the accusation of a straw-man argument, it makes it seem like you don't really understand what a "straw-man" is.

    66. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is a codeword for 'we dont want poor people living near our homes'

      Partially. The other half is that they want their property values to go up higher than the rate of inflation so they can sell off their houses when they retire and then use that money to buy a mansion in the sticks and live off the rest.

      The only way this will be fixed is if the state steps in and overrides the local government -- making them build dense housing.

    67. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm looking at the post they quoted and I don't see a qualifier that appears significant that got left off, just a parenthetical about why you mentioned those neighborhoods. Can you clarify your meaning?

    68. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no! Not the burrowing owls!

      No one gives a shit about your shitting snipes except the NIMBY types who want the poor people out of the Bay Area to protect their property values. Fuck you.

    69. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Owls have zero rights over humans.

    70. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The poor people with newer cars thing is a rooted in racism. Government mandated redlining denied people the opportunity to live in better places so their money, pride, and culture found another outlet; clothes, cars, etc...

    71. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      OK, find that original population and we can give it back to them.
      Or, you can acknowledge that they are probably intermingled with American Indians and they are the same people.

    72. Re: That makes me MAD! by kenh · · Score: 1

      "Income redistribution" generally means forcibly taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

      Exactly what you suggested - taxes are forcibly taken (care to argue property taxes are 'optional'?).

      What I'm suggesting would simply mean the "poor" choosing to fully use a valuable resource which they already own.

      You want gov't to cut checks to the 80% of the population that is poor, funded exclusively by the forced property taxes collected from new residents. That EXACTLY matches your definition of "income redistribution".

      --
      Ken
    73. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)

      That doesn't change anything about the meaning of what you were saying. As far as the accusation of a straw-man argument, it makes it seem like you don't really understand what a "straw-man" is.

      So you can't make the distinction between actually poor people and people that live in undesirable areas yet still own new cars? They're still considered "poor", but they're not destitute and might be able to afford to move into the cheaper high density apartments, whereas the first group can't. Or, are you making the argument this latter group is middle class? I actually kind of would like to know your thinking here. Maybe I was considering the wrong group in your "poor" categorization based on my assumption they could afford to move into cheaper high density apartments, per GGGP, and not a government subsidized Section 8 development, although high density apartments seem to go that way sooner or later in a lot of areas.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    74. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The poor people with newer cars thing is a rooted in racism.

      I guess this goes for all those red-neck neighborhoods with the jacked up 4X4s and spare truck parts littering the unkempt yards? Or were you being racist?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    75. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      OK, find that original population and we can give it back to them.

      More than one was exterminated, for all intents and purposes

      Or, you can acknowledge that they are probably intermingled with American Indians and they are the same people.

      There are traces left, per the genetic studies. It's actually how we were able to confirm the identity of some of the previous populations. But what you're stating is essentially to the victor go the spoils.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    76. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      So you can't make the distinction between actually poor people and people that live in undesirable areas yet still own new cars?

      Well first, I don't know what distinction you're trying to make there. Second, I don't know how it's relevant to your argument.

      Maybe we derailed somewhere in this conversation. Someone made the claim "99.99% of 'poor people' are 'poor' due to irresponsible behavior." Someone else responded, disagreeing. You responded saying:

      I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.

      I took that to mean you were agreeing with the original claim, and agreeing that "poor people" are poor due to irresponsible behavior. I understood you to be citing, as evidence, that you see newer vehicles than yours in "what we consider poor neighborhoods".

      Unless I missed a step along the way, I don't think it matters what you meant by "what we consider poor neighborhoods". The argument seems to be that poor people are poor because they'er buying nice cars, which is implied to be irresponsible behavior. My response to that was to point out that isn't very good evidence that poor people are irresponsible. Maybe there was a misunderstanding along the way. If so, feel free to explain.

      But if that much is correct, there are some pretty fundamental reasons why your argument isn't very good. First and foremost, I was pointing out that the cars you see in a certain neighborhood is only anecdotal evidence. We don't know that the pattern applies more generally. There could be a variety of biases that lead you to perceive a higher tendency of fancy cars in those neighborhoods than are actually there. You might be correct about the particular neighborhood you're referencing, but not about poor people in general.

      Aside from that, I think there may be other explanations as to why a fancy car may be in a poor neighborhood. Maybe a rich person was visiting a poorer friend in that neighborhood. Maybe someone wealthier in that person's family died, and left them a nice car. Maybe some guy in the neighborhood works at a car dealership, and he got a great discount on his new car. I really don't know. I don't know what neighborhood you're talking about.

      But aside from all that, there's also the possibility that people in that neighborhood bought fancy cars, but weren't being irresponsible. Maybe you're seeing people who could theoretically live in a nicer neighborhood, but they like their neighborhood and have chosen to stay. Maybe they're very frugal people who are willing to live in a cheap house in order to save money, and would rather splurge on a car instead of buying a nicer house.

      And before you go trying to pick apart individual points that I'm making or examples I'm using, keep in mind that I'm not arguing that any of these things are the case. I'm not saying that the people in the neighborhood all work for car dealerships. I'm just pointing out that you probably don't know what the deal is with each of these individual people-- and then also, even if you did know a bunch of poor people who were poor because they're irresponsible, that's only anecdotal evidence that may not apply to poor people in general.

    77. Re: That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What fucking universe do you live in where property tax isn't a normal tax?

    78. Re: That makes me MAD! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Exactly what you suggested - taxes are forcibly taken (care to argue property taxes are 'optional'?).

      No. I suggested to change the zoning code to provide a new option - "if you want to build a skyscraper, you now can, as long as you pay this special property tax". Any skyscraper-builder can freely choose to take or leave that deal. So can any person thinking of moving to the new skyscraper. So nobody is being coerced in any way.

      You want gov't to cut checks to the 80% of the population that is poor, funded exclusively by the forced property taxes collected from new residents.

      Actually, in the city I used as an example, 80% of the population is black/Hispanic. Interesting that you apparently use that as a synonym for "poor". The checks I'm proposing would go to 100% of the population. The checks would be funded by people who currently live elsewhere, who freely choose to move in for the cost of the property taxes they know they'll have to pay.

    79. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway. (Those would be the neighborhoods we'd consider as candidate population for these cheaper units)"

      and I have seen a Lamborghini parked in front of a trailer. whats your point.
      just because people cant manage their money and buy more car than they can afford does not mean anything other than people cant manage their money well enough. I'm sure that shit will be repo'ed soon.

    80. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "artificially inflated property values."

      congrats, you identified the real issue behind housing.

      The realtors are lying to you
      http://www.mintpressnews.com/empty-homes-outnumber-the-homeless-6-to-1-so-why-not-give-them-homes/207194/

    81. Re:That makes me MAD! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. The existence of nice vehicles in a neighborhood considered poor is evidence that 99.99% of all poor people are poor due to irresponsible behavior. That's what you're saying.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:That makes me MAD! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yes! If they acted irresponsibly they'd be running major corporations and getting paid millions to do it!

      You got me, I appreciate the trolling, we need more positive trolls like that.

    83. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      No, it is indicative of that specific subgroup's priorities.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    84. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Maybe we derailed somewhere in this conversation. Someone made the claim "99.99% of 'poor people' are 'poor' due to irresponsible behavior." Someone else responded, disagreeing. You responded saying: I'd say a lot of evidence is out there to the contrary. I see much newer vehicles in what we consider poor neighborhoods than what's in my driveway.

      Yes, I think we did derail, which is why I ended with my statement. We didn't qualify what "poor" meant. I took poor to mean in this sense to limit it to a group that could afford non-subsidized prefab housing located in CA, per TFS. That is certainly not "poor" as in those that need gov help or they're out on the street.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    85. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      So what does that distinction mean in terms of your argument? Are you saying that the very poor and destitute might not be to blame for their circumstances, but the moderately poor, the not-well-off, are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior?

      I'm just not sure why you view this distinction as relevant.

    86. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a bunch of pre-fabricated shit boxes that will look like a slum hotel within a year.

      There are MANY factory-built homes in Japan, and now starting to appear elsewhere in the USA, that look as good or better than any "stick-built" home ever built. In most cases the factory-built home is of a much more solid & sound construction than many "stick-built cracker boxes".

      Sometimes the "slum look" comes from the residents of homes bought on mortgages and sometimes from the landlords of rental blocks. In either case it comes down lack of pride in ownership and residence.

      Having seen Google's various campus locations in person I would expect that they will make a solid effort to keep the place looking nice because they know that letting it get "run down" will only help build the resistance against such housing.

    87. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      For purposes of the statement here, the distinction was that the group under consideration has a large enough subset showing what I'm deeming irresponsible behavior and to be the group I can understand people don't want living next door. (Part of the post and its parent I was originally responding to) Having been there myself multiple times, living next to these types of irresponsible people has more negative effects than merely lowering your property value, whether that is in houses, townhouses, condos, or apartments. I've also been poor myself, without the new car however. It's part of the reason I'm no longer poor.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    88. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Your really reaching there, and showing a remarkable hostility to learning. I wish I was surprised.

      While the poor have always been discriminated against, poor non-whites have an additional historic burden.
      The "red-neck" identity you reference barely existed before the end of the 20th century. It's a modern construct. People have been identified as black or non-white for much longer.

      For your reading pleasure:
      https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/
      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html

    89. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not saying victors get the spoils. I'm saying life belongs to the living, and we should try to solve the problems of today. Especially when the cause is widely acknowledged.

    90. Re:That makes me MAD! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Hey, you threw it out in a paragraph about "lots of evidence", not me. If that's the best you've got for evidence that 99.99% of the poor are there because they made bad decisions, you got nothing.

      You do realize that, if one poor person in a thousand got there by bad education or bad health or sheer bad luck, you're wrong.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    91. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It still sounds like you're trying to draw conclusions about a large number of people from the anecdotal evidence of your own experience of a very small subset of those people. Plus, you're assuming that "having a new car" = " being irresponsible", and that "living in a poorer neighborhood" = "living next to people you don't want to be around".

      All in all, what this conversation seems to be revealing to me is that you have some issues surrounding economic insecurity that you still need to deal with. It's sort of like hearing someone rant and rave about how fat people are all lazy and stupid, citing as evidence, "I know what I'm talking about because my dad was a fat piece of shit." In that circumstance, it the evidence cited doesn't really prove that fat people are all lazy and stupid, but rather that the person speaking has some daddy issues.

    92. Re:That makes me MAD! by martinfb · · Score: 1

      How does one define "poor" in this area?
      Salaries of under $120K?

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    93. Re: That makes me MAD! by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      So they tore them down! See! TEMPORARY!

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    94. Re: That makes me MAD! by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      It's threads like this that give me hope for /.. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, it was civil and well-written. Thanks to both of you for that.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    95. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Red-necks have been around as an identified group for something like 200 years, with several of those varying groups over the years still being identified as rednecks today. Rednecks became chic around the 1970s as a group. Some quick research outside of your millennial shell would do you some good.

      You get bonus points for correctly referencing redlining from the 30s. Your second link I draw a conclusion from it that like beliefs prefer like beliefs, and am unclear what you're driving at.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    96. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Then you missed the point of my original post.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    97. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I did not state 99.99% of the poor did not choose wisely, I took exception to the statement that 99.99% of the poor got their through no fault of their own, as effectively stated by interkin3tic. So I think we actually agree on that.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    98. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It still sounds like you're trying to draw conclusions about a large number of people from the anecdotal evidence of your own experience of a very small subset of those people. Plus, you're assuming that "having a new car" = " being irresponsible", and that "living in a poorer neighborhood" = "living next to people you don't want to be around".

      I've had a rather unusual experience, having lived in roughly 30 addresses across more than 2 decades, in a large number and types of housing across multiple states and countries. While still "small" as far as even the US population goes, I'd say my exposure exceeds the norm, and my impressions, while still anecdotal and relatively small, certainly are more valid than the 75% who never move from the state they grew up in, or only moved once. And no, I wasn't an Army brat who lived in the cloister of the armed forces housing.

      All in all, what this conversation seems to be revealing to me is that you have some issues surrounding economic insecurity that you still need to deal with. It's sort of like hearing someone rant and rave about how fat people are all lazy and stupid, citing as evidence, "I know what I'm talking about because my dad was a fat piece of shit." In that circumstance, it the evidence cited doesn't really prove that fat people are all lazy and stupid, but rather that the person speaking has some daddy issues.

      I freely admit to economic insecurity, until you're financially independent, you should be. (not you, specifically, the general "you") Where that is for anyone varies, obviously, but I've not reached a level I consider secure.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    99. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've probably read more history in the last year then you have in the last decade, and I'm a bit old for a millennial. Redneck chic is a recent phenomenon, although yes, the insult dates back a hundred years or so. However, that insult is not what we're talking about. Great strawman, but you neglect to refute my statement that there is no historical Redneck culture. Poor whites that got rich were absorbed into the upper class within a generation, not so for non-whites.

    100. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate. All I saw was an excuse to shit on people who are asking for help and compassion.

    101. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      While still "small" as far as even the US population goes, I'd say my exposure exceeds the norm

      I believe you, though I'd posit that it still might not be enough to be a scientifically valid sample.

      I don't want to get into some kind of competition of who has struggled with more. I'd be willing to cede that ground if you want it. On the other hand, I have lived in a few neighborhoods with people who would be considered by most to be "poor", and I've met a fair number of people in those neighborhoods that I thought were good, hard working people. Some people were making some not-very-good decisions in my view, but often enough, I could understand why. Many others were just stuck in a bad situation. Often it was hard to draw a clear line between those two groups. Our anecdotal experience seems to diverge.

      On the other hand, I wouldn't claim that either of us are impartial.

    102. Re:That makes me MAD! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sorry; I was confused by the original AC claim '99.99% of "poor people" are "poor" due to irresponsible behavior.', and your reaction to the counterclaim "Quite the opposite.". My take is that most but not all poor people are poor despite reasonably responsible behavior. If anyone really wants, I suppose I could argue about the responsibility of behavior appropriate to a poor area vs. behavior appropriate for success, and whether addictions and/or mental illness constitute irresponsible behavior, or we could just leave it at that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    103. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      When you're talking generalities, there's always exceptions. Note that I merely took exception to the refutation of "99.99% were poor because of their own decisions". I actually made no statement that 99.99% were poor for any reason, only noting that there was enough evidence to debunk the 99.99% number on the refutal just from anecdotal evidence. That was all I was originally attempting to state. Perhaps I needed to pause before hitting the submit button to rephrase it and could have avoided some of the misunderstandings.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    104. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I've probably read more history in the last year then you have in the last decade, and I'm a bit old for a millennial.

      You have no idea what I have or have not read - this is typical of a millennial self-centered viewpoint although by no means only limited to millennials, as apparently you're revealing now. Also, you've now moved your statement from late 20th century to beginning of the 20th century for the redneck term. With just a little more research, I'm sure you'll go all the way back to the end of the 18th/beginning of the 19th century. You'll also be shocked to discover the groups termed rednecks are still considered rednecks today - poor southern whites, appalachian whites, etc. As for being absorbed into higher classes that does sometimes happen, and sometimes they're the butt of jokes and backstabbing.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    105. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Egads.

      It's not Geronimo's land, he took it. Figuratively speaking, poor innocent Geronimo murdered or ran off the previous tenants, who may also have done the same and so on down to the original actual tenants, none of whom, for sake of argument, are left.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    106. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Nobody's innocent, maybe less guilty. Were you one of those kids who always pointed out what their brother did wrong when they were being disciplined?

    107. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I moved nothing. Redneck is a late 20th century innovation. More about marketing then culture.

    108. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I moved nothing. Redneck is a late 20th century innovation. More about marketing then culture.

      And I was hoping we'd made progress. You're still myopically viewing it under the lens of the chic redneck culture of the mid 70s onward. I can assure you that rednecks existed as an identity long before that period, with long being defined as decades at a minimum. The current definition of redneck already existed at least in the 1940s. Here is a little article from 74 that discusses rednecks written by a self-professed redneck who was born in the late 1920s, which also documents the rough time of the "romanticized" notion of a redneck.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    109. Re:That makes me MAD! by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Note that I merely took exception to the refutation of "99.99% were poor because of their own decisions". I actually made no statement that 99.99% were poor for any reason, only noting that there was enough evidence to debunk the 99.99% number on the refutal just from anecdotal evidence.

      I think maybe I misunderstood your post completely, then. Maybe? I thought you were agreeing that 99.99% of poor people are poor because of "irresponsible behavior", which would require that you had a census of 99.99% of poor people, or else a study with a large enough random sample to warrant extrapolating.

    110. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Hilariously, your article supports my view entirely. It talks about the current redneck chic, and it was published in the 1970's. It's written by someone who has been identified as a redneck, and is ashamed of that sobriquet. He doesn't claim any sort of Redneck culture and disdains those who do because they are claiming it falsely.

      From the article:
      Attempts to deify the Redneck, to represent his life style as close to that of the noble savage are, at best, unreal and naive. For all their native wit—and sometimes they have keen senses of the absurd as applied to their daily lives—Rednecks generally are a sorry sad lot. They flounder in perilous financial waters and are mired in the socio-political shallows. Their lives are hard: long on work and short on money; full of vile bossmen, hounding creditors, quarrels, disappointments, confrontations, ignorance, a treadmill hopelessness. It may sound good on a country-western record when Tom T. Hall and Waylon Jennings lift their voices, baby, but it neither sounds nor feels good when life is real and the alarm clock’s jarring jangle soon must be followed by the timeclock’s tuneless bells. No, we need not perpetuate the Redneck myth. Indeed, our mudball ideally might show a net gain if it were possible not to perpetuate Rednecks themselves.

      BONUS He describes you as a "good old boy"
      The bona fide Good Ole Boy may or may not have been to college. But bet your ass he’s a climber, an achiever, a con man looking for the edge. He’ll lay a lot of semi-smarmy charm on you, and middling-to-high-grade bullshit. He acts dumber than he is when he knows something, and smarter than he is when he doesn’t.

    111. Re: That makes me MAD! by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Wear on the roads is negligible for passenger vehicles. You can go look that up. Yea, you need one teacher for like 30 students, as I said it doesn't scale like was being said.

    112. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension: 0.

      I'll give you just a few quotes:

      The maddest I remember being at my late wife...

      But being called a “redneck,” now, especially when you know in your genes and in the dirty back roads of your mind that you are one—despite having spent years trying not to be—well, that just don’t constitute fair fighting. I do not cherish Rednecks, which means I dislike certain persistent old parts of myself.

      Note a) this was written in 74, and b) his wife passed away already and the event occurred prior to that and c) he's talking bout trying to avoid being a redneck for years. Now any rational mind would equate all that to redneck having existed, given that he was born in 1929 and the implication that he was one by birth, as being relevant information to establish that yes, rednecks as we know them existed all the way back to his birth. This is even solidified by the next line:

      Of late the Redneck has been wildly romanticized; somehow he threatens to become a cultural hero.

      Which again, for the slow, directly states that the redneck definition has existed for some time and has been elevated just recently, as of 1974. If you can't understand that means rednecks as a group, and a maligned group, has existed since at least the early 1900s, well, I'm done.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    113. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yes, Redneck has been around as an insult or a denigration. I don't debate that. It has not and is not a culture, as you implied above. There is no Redneck culture. There is black culture, asian culture. hispanic culture.
      Poor whites and poor non-whites are discriminated against. Poor non-whites have additional discrimination, even if they are less poor. None of your arguments bring any of this into dispute. You probably didn't read that article, because you don't understand it.

    114. Re:That makes me MAD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Redneck has been around as an insult or a denigration. I don't debate that. It has not and is not a culture, as you implied above. There is no Redneck culture. There is black culture, asian culture. hispanic culture.

      No redneck culture, but yet we identify them by their behavior and beliefs? I think perhaps you don't have a clue what "culture" actually consists of.

    115. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No, they self identify due to marketing and yes there is a blossoming "Redneck Culture". We're arguing about a historical "Redneck Culture". It does not exist. You can't claim that Rednecks were any more persecuted then any other group of poor people.

    116. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      First, AC was me - how it became AC, who knows.

      No, they self identify due to marketing and yes there is a blossoming "Redneck Culture". We're arguing about a historical "Redneck Culture". It does not exist. You can't claim that Rednecks were any more persecuted then any other group of poor people.

      I think you still don't understand the concept of culture. These people had certain behaviors and beliefs (the actual definition of culture) which were different from, for example, hillbillies, although those two groups admittedly share more than they differ. But they do differ, and that's what defines the differences in culture.

      My original statement was merely to point out that that poster's comment about newer cars in poor neighborhoods only being associated with a persecuted ethnic minority was essentially viewing the world through a racist lens. I am not sure where you're going, but you sure seem to be hell-bent on a persecution complex.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    117. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I'm the original poster. My point was not about persecution, it was about explanation.
      Here is a nice article about the "substitution effect" in entertainment spending. This effect also explains why, when blacks were prevented from purchasing desirable homes as their income increased, blacks instead spent that money on fancier clothes, cars, etc...
      Lots of poor whites look at this slice of their spending and assume every other part is the same as theirs, it's not. That is my point. There are many subtle differences with historical roots.
      This does not bear out in poor whites or "Rednecks" they move and blend. After a generation, stigma is gone and they have generally adopted the local culture.

    118. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm the original poster.

      You aren't the original, you responded to me which is your first post in this thread and shouldn't overlook my original post for the context of where I'm coming from. That's where you inserted racism!!!!, from which you still haven't gotten the hint. My comment was only that a certain set of factors related to the category of "poor" people likely eligible to move into the type of housing from TFS, and that they made what in some folks opinions are bad choices which is why they cannot live in "better" neighborhoods. No more, no less.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    119. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You inserted RACISM. I only inserted an explanation as to why you might see newer vehicles in a poor neighborhood. You made an assumption and you continue to make assumptions.
      You also tried to spin my explanation to apply to "rednecks", which it does not. There could be some argument that urban whites have bleed over from urban non-white culture, but that is not what you tossed out.

      Your entire line of commentary after that just reinforces your internal bias, and exposed it to us.

    120. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The poor people with newer cars thing is a rooted in racism.

      Who brought up racism?

      While the poor have always been discriminated against, poor non-whites have an additional historic burden.

      Who continued ranting down the racist path? I know, I know, talking about how bad minorities were treated means you're not racist, except when it is. I'll skip over how you can't admit you're wrong either, since you've side-stepped and contorted around that conclusion several times. Then again, you've clearly shown how wrong you've been on multiple topics in this thread starting with your racist slant on poor people. It takes a special kind of stubbornness to continue to piss into the wind, it reminds me a lot of Trump.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    121. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I explained, you refused to listen. I'll bet that's a recurring theme in your life. I didn't call you racist, and past racism is a well defined and accepted. I assumed you were unaware, not a racist yourself, but I think anyone following this thread will come to another conclusion.

    122. Re:That makes me MAD! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I explained, you refused to listen.

      You asserted, not explained. Same with racism, as you apparently view the world through a racist leaning lens. Quit being so sensitive and open up your mind. Sorry for the delay, I was busy.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    123. Re:That makes me MAD! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Life has taught me to be wary of racists. They are out there and most aren't loudly announcing it. Many people lie to themselves about it and get very angry when you poke that bubble.
      Please explain how my explanation
      [make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.]
      was "asserted" [state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully].

      As I stated before. I think you are hostile to having your assumptions questioned, hostile to learning things that don't agree with your worldview, and hostile to me because I'm unwilling to accept your narrative at face value.

  2. Good for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pity anyone who actually takes them up on the offer.

  3. Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy, now I REALLY want to go work for Google!

    1. Re:Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you rather waste $45k in rent/yr instead of living in the "trailer park?"

    2. Re:Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you rather waste $45k in rent/yr instead of living in the "trailer park?"

      Yes I would, but we still don't know how much Google IS going to charge people to live there.

    3. Re: Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather live anywhere else and not work for Google. I think that's called a win win.

    4. Re:Google Trailer Park by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Company housing is often paired with a company store.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Google Trailer Park by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I still have my Google gym shorts from the last time that I did a contract job for them.

    6. Re:Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you washed them?

    7. Re: Google Trailer Park by richardellisjr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Prefab homes aren't necessarily mobile homes. In some cases they are just as good if not better than traditional homes. The way some are made all the framing is made in a factory and trucked in and assembled on site. This allows factory level efficiency and reduced cost but results in a house you can't tell was prefab.

    8. Re:Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hard to believe, considering you obviously spend you life at the gym to look like a professional football player.

    9. Re:Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how it gets taxed. Is it a fringe benefit like the food?

    10. Re: Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but I think we all know what this will be. A bunch of H1-Bs living in shipping containers on an airfield. It'll look straight out of District 9 in a year. Fuck that. Better solution is to live in another city. I moved to Seattle many years ago and it was the best decision of my life.

    11. Re: Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prefab homes aren't necessarily mobile homes. In some cases they are just as good if not better than traditional homes. The way some are made all the framing is made in a factory and trucked in and assembled on site. This allows factory level efficiency and reduced cost but results in a house you can't tell was prefab.

      Well if you live in an area where all houses are just big rectangles with no basements they might blend in. Here the pre-fab home subdivisions stick out like sore thumbs and are just slightly classier trailer parks.

    12. Re: Google Trailer Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second this. I took a construction class at a local community college and we built a modular home as part of the class. The one we built was constructed to withstand hurricane force winds (you have to truck the modules down a highway to the building site). When the modules get to the building site they are placed on a permanent concrete foundation and cannot be moved like a mobile (trailer) home can. There are factories where you can buy a modular house and have it customized and placed on a building site that you own. You can even build a 2 story home this way.

  4. trailers for techies by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    same thing done for mill workers back in the day.

    1. Re:trailers for techies by Nethead · · Score: 2

      I owe my soul, to the company store.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  5. Why doesn't Google have Dorms on their Campus?

    1. Re:Dorms by FireballX301 · · Score: 1

      They've tried, but the campus is still in Mountain View and the city has the ability to tell them whether housing units are okay or not. Moffett Field is in technically unincorporated land and under the purview of the feds.

    2. Re:Dorms by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't Google have Dorms on their Campus?

      Because that is illegal. At least for a while, they allowed camper trailers in their parking lots, but I don't know if that is still true. They provide shower facilities for both campers and bike-to-workers.

  6. Bay View Campus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Campus? Isn't that the northern word for plantation?

  7. The working Poor of California. by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Earn $200K a year, live in a trailer!

    1. Re:The working Poor of California. by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Earn $200K a year, live in a trailer!

      If it means I don't have to fight traffic for an hour to get to work (even if I'm in a bus), I'd be happy to take that salary and live in the cheap housing.

    2. Re:The working Poor of California. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      should helicopter them out to more hospitable areas for downtime like oil rig workers

    3. Re:The working Poor of California. by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You definitely don't have kids. Or a wife. Or want a girlfriend.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:The working Poor of California. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or move somewhere else, where you make $75,000 a year and own a nice home and live a much better life.

    5. Re:The working Poor of California. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      After just a few years of that kind of pay, they'd be able to afford those.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:The working Poor of California. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      After just a few years of that kind of pay, they'd be able to afford those.

      Yeah, that's what we all think.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:The working Poor of California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if in Europe, less than $75,000 and still expensive housing!

    8. Re:The working Poor of California. by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That's usually not the kind of person who wants to move to SV and work for Google anyway. It's probably more likely that you move there as single and then wife comes from within the Googlesphere as (not unlike a university campus) the job comes with enough stuff to spend also your spare time.

      There is a reason why they call it campus.

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:The working Poor of California. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You definitely don't have kids. Or a wife. Or want a girlfriend.

      There have been multiple articles now about googlers (and others) who lived together as a couple in a box truck while saving a down payment. Maybe not every woman is as superficial as the only ones you can attract.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:The working Poor of California. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Modular can mean anything from a double-wide to a two story colonial set on permanent foundations. Now are the really cheaper, mine came in $20,00 a square foot less than my neighbors and would have been even more if the inspectors hadn't been screwing us at every opportunity. They also go up faster, but not as fast as you would imagine. Electrical is a matter of plugging in connector and it's fast, plumbing takes as long or longer than stick built and the 80/20 rule still applies, the last 205 of the work takes 80% of the time.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:The working Poor of California. by kenh · · Score: 1

      Modular can mean anything from a double-wide to a two story colonial set on permanent foundations.

      No, it doesn't. Modular never meant "double-wide", it means Pre-Fab, as opposed to stick-built (or site-built), as in "assembled from modules."

      --
      Ken
    12. Re:The working Poor of California. by kenh · · Score: 1

      There have been multiple articles now about googlers (and others) who lived together as a couple in a box truck while saving a down payment.

      You understand the articles were written BECAUSE they are not the norm, right?

      --
      Ken
    13. Re:The working Poor of California. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You understand the articles were written BECAUSE they are not the norm, right?

      You understand that a normal life with a normal person is not a healthy goal, because modern society is seriously fucked up, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: The working Poor of California. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Go find a psychotic bitch and live like you're a wingnut vagrant. Heed the immortal guide to happiness by a guy named 'drinkypoo' on slashdot.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re: The working Poor of California. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Go find a psychotic bitch and live like you're a wingnut vagrant.

      Isn't the woman who is too uptight to live in a truck for a year in order to make her life work out the psychotic bitch?

      Heed the immortal guide to happiness by a guy named 'drinkypoo' on slashdot.

      You've only got so many tricks; no one lives forever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Company housing by rfengr · · Score: 2

    Company housing, company cafeteria; now they just need suicide nets.

    1. Re:Company housing by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I doubt Google would do that at a Foxconn level, so there is probably no need for the nets.

      Company Housing and company cafetaria are not problems per se, it's about how you do it. I have never heard of the Foxconn 15...

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:Company housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the scrip!

  9. New Rose Hotel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Facebook can just spread a brain-eating virus in the Google slum.

  10. 300 units? by AlanObject · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I live in Fremont, just across the bay from Google and Facebook. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 38.5 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.

    Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.

    And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.

    1. Re:300 units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With relatively inelastic demand for housing, small changes in supply can make bigger changes than you expect. Every bit helps.

      Now if we could just get the Bay Area to allow more housing. My parents moved into a new townhouse in San Mateo 19 years ago. The builder still hasn't successfully fought the city yet to be allowed to finish all of the units.

    2. Re:300 units? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      My government IT job is in Palo Alto. When we had an open position, I told recruiters not to hire anyone from the East Bay because traffic is hell on earth once they get off the Dumbarton Bridge. If they do hire someone from the East Bay, they should be willing to take public transit. The last two guys from the East Bay quit because they couldn't handle the commute in their cars and didn't want to take public transit. I take public transit because I'm not insane enough to drive beyond the 280/85 interchange into Palo Alto.

    3. Re:300 units? by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Uhh, Beau1080p up above said, and I quote..

      I live in Hayward, just across the bay from Facebook and Google. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 43.6 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.

      Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.

      And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.

      10 minutes after you.

      Bet we just found a shill account.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re: 300 units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet we just found a shill account.

      Do you suffer from a multiple personality disorder?

    5. Re:300 units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *told* recruiters? The arrogance of your pitiful delusions is frightening. Recruiters look at you like the vermin you are, they just nod and move to the next janitor.

      You may have indeed "told" something to someone, the real question is; did they listen?

    6. Re:300 units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Fresno, just across the bay from Facebook and Google. If I were offered a job at either of them I would consider turning it down solely because of the commute problem in this area. In nominal conditions I can make it to Stanford Hospital in about 43.6 minutes. In commute conditions without access to the commuter lane that can stretch to 2 hours or more.

      Would 300 units even make a dent in the problem? The Google lunch area alone (been there) accommodates several times that number. At best this would be temporary accommodations.

      And the problem with temporary accommodations is that they tend to turn into permanent accommodations. And it is rarely very pretty.

  11. polymer polymore polyman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just don't shine a bright light into the night air right next to you/all around us.. cease fire stand down,, sing along.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvtJPs8IDgU .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLO3NmGJuHg .. enough goo already?

  12. yey reliance by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    i hope this does not trend nationwide. is it not bad enough people cannot afford medical care until their company offers insurance, often months after being hired? but now we will depend on them for housing. if you want to leave for a better job (or get fired) 100% chance youll have to move rather than find a new job within range of your place...

    1. Re:yey reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would this trend nationwide? The Bay Area is fucked up for housing prices and has been for a long time. Most other places have reasonably priced housing and generally that is because developers can actually develop housing that meets people's actual needs.

      Google can get bent. Modular dorms? I lived in one 30 years ago at University. No thanks. Get a real job instead of programming for some nerd farm.

    2. Re:yey reliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly, the middle of the country is laughing its ass off at you bay area retards.

  13. Van Attack in Lodon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks to be a white supremacist (ie. a white guy).

    1. Re:Van Attack in Lodon by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Looks to be a white supremacist (ie. a white guy).

      Bad news. If in resisting the muslims we become like them then what have we gained?

    2. Re:Van Attack in Lodon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks to be a white supremacist (ie. a white guy).

      Bad news. If in resisting the muslims we become like them then what have we gained?

      Fewer muslims?

  14. Ramadan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Muslims are getting very violent now. Just now in London, another car ran into a group of white ango people.

    1. Re:Ramadan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you care about easily lookable facts, a van rammed muslims coming out of mosque. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/finsbury-park-mosque-latest-terror-attack-london-live/

    2. Re:Ramadan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they don't call it the Ramadamabombathon for peaceful coexistence.

  15. mellow drama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sing along almost everybody knows the 'words' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5PtyrewSs thanks again.. seems like everything megasloth et al does is about fighting?

  16. I hope they go full hippie by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Prefab building stuff is often glued together. Mmmmmmm, glue.

    They ought to do a bunch of these eco-fabulous container homes, not just because they're granola-friendly but because they're seismically secure...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Muslim Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Ramadan so Muslims are getting all uppity and doing jihad.

    It's not just a problem in London, Muslims are getting violent in Ontario, too.

    1. Re:Muslim Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just a problem in London, Muslims are getting violent in Ontario, too.

      Well obviously, Canada and the UK haven't imported *enough* Muslims yet, that's the problem! Maybe you guys could just switch places? Canadians could build a hockey rink in Tripoli, British could corner the market in fish-&-chips franchises in Tunisia. Muslims could convert Buckingham Palace into a huge mosque. Toronto and Montreal, well...I guess they could just bulldoze those flat, and start over...

  18. Religion of Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam is based on peace, that's why it's called the religion of peace.

    Everything in Islam is based on peace.

  19. There is no God but Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Muhammad is his prophet.

  20. Meaningless dribble by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is meaningless dribble. Prefab housing will never be built in numbers large enough to be anything other than green-washing. If Google wanted to do something meaningful about housing prices it would do one of two things:

    Set up shop in a place where housing isn't already undergoing a huge shortage.
    Lobby to remove height based restrictions for housing.

    These are the only two real world options. You have to either change the supply (remove height restrictions) or you have to change the demand (set up shop elsewhere).

    You cannot circumvent the laws of supply and demand. Even though government after government has attempted to do so over the years.

    1. Re:Meaningless dribble by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Set up shop in a place where housing isn't already undergoing a huge shortage.

      There are very very few places that come close to the concentration of talent available in SV and SF. Most successful tech companies start and grow in the Bay Area. The only other areas that come close are Seattle, NYC, London, etc. which all have similarly tight housing markets. If it was possible to grow a successful tech company in, say, Oklahoma City, then there would some examples of that happening.

      Lobby to remove height based restrictions for housing.

      No way. The people that get to vote on that are the incumbent property owners, and they have zero interest in allowing growth that will deflate their property values.

    2. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      . If it was possible to grow a successful tech company in, say, Oklahoma City, then there would some examples of that happening.

      Hi from Raleigh/Durham North Carolina. There are plenty of successful tech companies here and housing is still affordable. Many other locations available in the US and abroad with similar qualities. Commentary being it is a matter of deciding whether your lifestyle - not your job - is suitable for where you want to live.

    3. Re:Meaningless dribble by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Yeah Google, Apple, Facebook and all the other bay area tech companies should just write fat cheques to whichever local governments they need to lobby in order for get the zoning laws changed so high density can be built. Get some property developers (the sort of people who would love to build such high density buildings if it was possible to do so) to throw some money into the pot as well.

    4. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap, I live in the Raleigh/Durham area, a technology hub with reasonable traffic and housing costs, and now I learn that apparently my city doesn't exist? Maybe *I* don't exist?????

      oh no now im disappearing like marty mcfly ~~~~

    5. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The height restrictions and other regulations all pale in comparison to the absolute limit that is placed by the municipalities on how many new residential units can be built. The other restrictions may make it somewhat more expensive, but limit the number or new residential units allowed to be built, à la communism, and you get the ridiculous scarcity we all currently enjoy.

    6. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But Google is Google.

      If they were to build a campus in Iowa (to pick a somewhat random location) and say "we'll pay you 2/3 of a San Francisco salary, but the cost of living is 1/2 and housing is 1/4 the cost" how many people would turn them down? (Hell, I don't know if Google even cares to pay less.)
      I'm sure there are some people who will insist on living in the Bay Area, but plenty who would take a California salary in the Midwest. (In a place Google could probably transform overnight by setting up shop.)

    7. Re:Meaningless dribble by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You cannot circumvent the laws of supply and demand

      Google is opening up three new large office buildings, so they're hitting the demand button a lot harder than they're supplying things.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Meaningless dribble by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It's not just height restrictions, it's small numbers of well organized locals coming out against any developments that might improve the housing supply. Well intentioned politicians introduced measures to ensure communities had a say in their development, but those processes have been hijacked by groups opposed to everyone from outsiders to the poor.

      What you really need to do is reduce the power of the community veto in circumstances in which a severe housing shortage exists. Legal Shantytowns seems a poor way to solve the problem, but it may well be Google is actually doing this to apply pressure on legislators to act - the payoff isn't more homes, it's horrified politicians realizing that a major city is becoming a third world spoof of itself thanks to its inability to deal with an easily solvable problem.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re: Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by successful, you mean non-profit making, VC fuled, pump and dump schemes than I agree, SV is the best place for a new tech company.

    10. Re:Meaningless dribble by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Set up shop in a place where housing isn't already undergoing a huge shortage.

      The problem with that is that it makes it much harder to employees to switch jobs. If they live near Google but there are few other tech jobs in the area then changing jobs means moving home too. That has a cost attached, it could be problematic for their partner's job, it will disrupt their children's education etc.

      That is why the model was to have suburbs and people commute to their job, giving them a fairly wide radius to look for work in without having to move house. The problem now is that the transportation systems have not kept up with demand. Too much personal transport, too little public transport, too low quality all round.

      Fixing it is really hard. Cities need to change quite radically, or new ones need to be built. Maybe Google and some other big employers could agree to set up offices in new cities, in partnership with the CA government, and make sure they are designed for easy commuting from the very start.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re: Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dribble is the pee that drips off your dick you are done pissing. Or it's bouncing a basketball. The word you are looking for I drivel.

    12. Re:Meaningless dribble by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      This is meaningless dribble

      "drivel", though I like your thinking!

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    13. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it is actually possible for a tech company to be successful in Oklahoma City. See Paycom. Maybe not as sexy as some things in the Bay Area, but not everything in the Bay Area is sexy either.

      http://newsok.com/article/5551264

    14. Re:Meaningless dribble by kenh · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that it makes it much harder to employees to switch jobs.

      As an employer, is it my concern that employees can easily switch jobs? Invest in relocation packages, locate in a nice alternative city, and enjoy a locked-in workforce.

      --
      Ken
    15. Re:Meaningless dribble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for one of these tech companies and for a while lived in Silicon Valley. There is a fundamental issue with the whole supply and demand equation that is overlooked. At some point the price of housing will rise so high that not even Apple, Google or the rest of them will be able to afford the pay scales needed to maintain a pool of buyers that such housing inflation is based upon. At that point, and we are very near to it, one of two options present themselves.

      1. Company housing. Much like in the late 19th century you could be employed and at the same time given housing as part of that employment. Of course the towns and cities of Silicon Valley will fight this development. It doesn't take long for company housing to start wiping out the value of non-company housing as it deprives the market of the one thing it needs to continue on it breakneck inflationary pace, a supply of buyers.

      The Silicon Valley market works great if you can buy at one million and sell at $1.5 million but what happens to you when there is suddenly not a supply of buyer and you have to sell at $600,000?

      2. Move the workers to less expensive locations. This is what I, and many of the people I work with in my division did. We kept our Silicon Valley wages and simply moved to a less expensive location. This works because of the fundamental nature of what Apple, Google and other companies build. At it essence they build devices and services that eliminate geography. There is literally no difference between me sitting in my home office as, I am now, in the midwest and when I sat in an office in Silicon Valley. I still have all the access to the company network, my office phone still rings on the same number, I can be in Silicon Valley in less than 4 hours if I really, really need to be. I live in the biggest house I have ever owned at a cost 1/20 of what a modest home in Silicon Valley would have cost. I paid for it in cash.

      So the danger is that at some point the light will go on in Silicon Valley, the companies will start to realize, as mine has, that they are building the very tools and services which will undermine the need to have everyone located in one place and that they are paying a very high price to do so. Housing inflation can not continue forever no one will pay $10,000 for an iPhone just so a bunch of engineers can by 10 million dollars for a three bedroom bungalow. Also who is going to teach your kids, pick up your trash, keep you safe? Without these people civil society starts to break down and these people need places to live too.

      So when one of these two events or both happen the supply of buyers and renters dries up. The rules of supply and demand take hold and all that equity disappears like so much smoke because it was never real equity to start with. Remember that when houses are treated like a commodity, they will act like a commodity. Don't believe me? Go ask people in Las Vegas, or Casper, Wyoming or any number of other cities large and small that have seen it happen.

  21. Will they have a company store . . . by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    that one can conveniently sell their soul to? (Johnny Cash's rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

    1. Re:Will they have a company store . . . by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      US is slipping back to
      Company town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and scrip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Re:Moderation is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shaddup, no one likes this guy

  23. Did Ja Rule come up with this plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is terrible. The employees are going to end up living out of crates or something. Did you see the picture in the article? I don't see any modular houses, just office buildings and grass fields. They don't even want to show a concept of what these houses will look like because they know they're shit.

  24. Google has the cash and clout by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold. They could even reduce the % overtime as an incentive for good employees to stay with them. If an employee leaves, they could freeze the % if the borrower is up to date; or even offer to give up the equity in the event of a layoff as part of a package. In the later case, it could possibly be a tax free way to add to the severance; depending on the tax law and how the deal is structured. Such an approach would let employees get into the market and take advantage of its crazyness while tying employees to Google as well. The Moffat Field homes could serve as transitional places as employees look for a home; or as housing for employees that would prefer to rent. If my company at the time had such a deal I'd still be there and living on the coast side; enjoying the benefits of living in a small town by the ocean with a short commute into the Bay Area and the city. The coat side isn't for everyone but for those of us that liked the environment and loved fog it was great place to live. All the advantages of the city and the valley with none of the BS.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Google has the cash and clout by swillden · · Score: 2

      to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.

      That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Google has the cash and clout by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.

      That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.

      Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:Google has the cash and clout by swillden · · Score: 1

      to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.

      That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.

      Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.

      I don't. It would increase the ability of Google employees to bid by some percentage, which would raise prices by almost exactly that percentage. Especially since it's not uncommon that Google employees are bidding against each other.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Google has the cash and clout by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      to offer loans to their employees in exchange for equity sharing. Google could under write (or more likely secure funds from other lenders) home loans with the proviso they get some % percentage of the increase in value when the home is sold.

      That would make bay area property owners happy, since it would increase the ability of highly-paid Google employees to pay even higher prices, thereby driving property values up more.

      Giving the nature of the market such a move might raise prices a bit but given bidding wars already occur I doubt the impact would be vary noticable.

      I don't. It would increase the ability of Google employees to bid by some percentage, which would raise prices by almost exactly that percentage. Especially since it's not uncommon that Google employees are bidding against each other.

      I guess it would depend on how Google would do that. If therapist at say the estimated value then it might heat up the bidding to that point but not impact a final purchase price that much; if they offered tom uh underwrite more than the price would go up. In one case you simply have more bidders but a price cap, in the other there is no cap. It would be interesting to see the data if they did do something like that.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Google has the cash and clout by swillden · · Score: 1

      In any case, the better strategy is to try to attack the root problem, the limited supply of housing. Increasing supply may actually bring housing prices down, which benefits everyone (other than those who bought at inflated prices). Of course, 300 units isn't going to do it, but I'm sure this is just a test. If it goes well, I'm sure they'll put in a lot more.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Google has the cash and clout by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      In any case, the better strategy is to try to attack the root problem, the limited supply of housing. Increasing supply may actually bring housing prices down, which benefits everyone (other than those who bought at inflated prices). Of course, 300 units isn't going to do it, but I'm sure this is just a test. If it goes well, I'm sure they'll put in a lot more.

      We're in full agreement - the best way to deal with high costs is to increase supply. Unfortunately, areas such as the Bay Area have limited amounts of land so increasing supply is problematic; gentrification of poorer areas is one response to that but creates other problems and often those areas become too pricy as well. That's why areas such as Gilroy and further south develop as "affordable" alternatives, if you can stand the commute; and also results in the loss of farm land for housing, changing the economic structure of those areas.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:Google has the cash and clout by swillden · · Score: 1

      Limited land isn't the problem. Zoning rules barring high density housing are. Just gotta build up.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Google has the cash and clout by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Limited land isn't the problem. Zoning rules barring high density housing are. Just gotta build up.

      I disagree, I think it is one of the root causes of the problem. Look at NYC, a similar space constrained market that has built "up" but prices are still sky high. They have simply built high end properties because enough people can afford them so there is no reason to build affordable units. High land prices as well as expensive construction costs coupled with high demand means even if you build up you won't make a significant dent in the cost compared to areas where there is still plenty of land to sprawl.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    9. Re:Google has the cash and clout by swillden · · Score: 1

      NYC is a dramatically more space-constrained market, with housing densities two to three orders of magnitude higher. Put everyone in SV into NYC-style housing and you could bring back the orchards. Also, rent control has served to artificially increase prices in NYC.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  25. Tent cities are back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working in Silicon Valley seems pretty great. I'm so upset I gave up industry for a cushy faculty job.

  26. Re:Muslim attack in England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STFU.

    Islam is all about peace, obviously.

  27. Construction costs aren't the problem by natetheokay · · Score: 1

    The housing crunch has little to do with the cost of construction and much to do with restrictive zoning and discretionary reviews that prevent projects from happening at all.

    1. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      It's not the cost of construction. Developers build "luxury" housing because it has higher profit margins. Convincing developers to build other kinds of housing with lower profit margins is a tough sell.

    2. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The housing crunch has little to do with the cost of construction and much to do with restrictive zoning and discretionary reviews that prevent projects from happening at all.

      THIS. A thousand times this. Here in California we this little thing called the California Environmental Quality Act and like many laws passed in this state by the environmental left it has been co-opted to by wealthy NIMBYs and misguided do-gooders to either prevent new development or slow it down so much that the cost becomes ruinous. The NIMBYs know that if they can drag it out long enough, the developer will likely go bankrupt or give up. There's always somebody in this state who doesn't want something new built for various reasons and this law makes it easy for them to monkey wrench any project they don't like. The irony is that the people that are most hurt by these practices are predominately poor and brown, the very sort that California Democrats claim they most want to help.

    3. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      Having developers focus exclusively on "luxury" apartments is not itself a problem. If all the new housing supply is going to the luxury end of the market, then the mid-range apartment hunters will no longer have to compete with the rich. Which then means that the poor will no longer have to compete with the middle class.

      So more luxury apartments mean that the rent goes down for everyone (unless there was an oversupply, which there isn't in the Bay Area).

    4. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      So more luxury apartments mean that the rent goes down for everyone (unless there was an oversupply, which there isn't in the Bay Area).

      My 50-year-old apartment complex charges the same rental rate as the brand new luxury apartment complex down the street. The only time rental rates stand still is when the stock market crashes (i.e., dot com bust and great recession) and a million people move out of Silicon Valley.

    5. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your apartment complex is as old as you!? Does it also do 150 pound cable rows?

    6. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by tsqr · · Score: 1

      like many laws passed in this state by the environmental left it has been co-opted to by wealthy NIMBYs and misguided do-gooders

      I think you mean, like many laws passed in this state by the environmental left, it was poorly written, opened the door to many unintended consequences, and was pushed through in a hurry to give its sponsors the appearance that they were "doing the right thing".

    7. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All done in the name to protect some endangered species nobody has ever heard of such as the shitting snipe.

      Environmentalists and NIMBY-types are indirectly responsible for Ellis Act evictions. You heard it here first.

    8. Re:Construction costs aren't the problem by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      it's land, man, land. Ain't gonna get anything right unless there is more land. Inherent problem is limited amounts of land unless govt sells Moffett Field, gets rid of the runways which will provide lots of land for new housing, oh wait maybe want to review this https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sf...

      Someone buys a house in Silicon Valley, they completely remodel with new landscape (the land is the expensive part). You can see in comparison of original owner from 1970s still in same house, lawn is crummy, chipped paint, roof in need of repair, old cars in driveway as garage filled with useless junk.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  28. Re:Moderation is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beau is an IDIOT!

  29. The problem is permits... by Temkin · · Score: 1

    Thanks to Prop 13 (circa 1978...), the average permit & planning fee cost to build a single family unit of housing in the Bay Area exceeds $140,000. That's why you see so many crappy houses for sale at absurd prices. "Yeah, it's a wet cardboard box... But it has a valid occupancy permit and .09 acres... So $600k is fair..."

    The cities can't get the property taxes to pay for expanding the sewer & water plants, etc... So they factor those in up front.

    1. Re:The problem is permits... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Two remodels.

      First: replace all but the NE corner.

      Second: replace NE corner.

      Teardowns are a thing of the past.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:The problem is permits... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Prop 13 (circa 1978...), the average permit & planning fee cost to build a single family unit of housing in the Bay Area exceeds $140,000.

      Thanks to NIBMYS, you are unlikely to be able to build anything anywhere in Silicon Valley! (Unless of course you are Google or Apple and basically bribe the city)

  30. Re:Moderation is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, serves this IDIOT right. Mod 'em down I say!

  31. Company town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they're joining the list of businesses that build isolated towns for their employees, which includes lumber factories, coal mines, steel mills, the military ...

  32. Solving the wrong problem by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or they could maybe build a facility somewhere else and expand there. Somewhere the engineers AND the janitor can get a place to live within a 30 minute drive. And the people who provide the services that allow a community to exist, like firefighters, teachers, food servers, etc... It doesn't have to be out in the boonies either. It will still need to be an area with a relatively high average education to supply and attract the right talent, so there will still be some affluence, but it isn't difficult to be better from a housing and traffic situation than what they have now. Otherwise this modular housing is just a waste of time and money, they should be building an arcology on their main campus.

    1. Re:Solving the wrong problem by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      I hear land is cheap in Wyoming.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re: Solving the wrong problem by cunina · · Score: 1

      The janitor can live in East Palo Alto. The engineers can live anywhere between Redwood City and Santa Clara.

    3. Re:Solving the wrong problem by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That still would meet the description of a "company town" as given on wikipedia (someone already linked to the article)

      --
      bickerdyke
    4. Re:Solving the wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saltaire near where i have a house in Yorkshire is a model British town built for the mill workers by Sir Titus Salt. The buildings are built from Yorkshire stone to a high standard. Even the Japanese Iwakura Mission toured the town to gather ideas about the modernisation of Japan, and it is now classified as a world heritage site.

      Surely one of the most prosperous companies in the world in the 21st century with all of their money and technology could do something amazing. The secret with a lot of these sorts of developments is to foster community, without that they wither and turn into just another suburb. Don't make the mistake of the British in the 1960s that cleared good communities for high rise developments which completely destroyed the cohesion that medium density construction brings to urban communities.

      You can be rich and have lots of money, and if your lucky you can be rich and live in a community.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltaire

    5. Re:Solving the wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a reason more and more companies are opening offices or choosing to totally relocate to the Los Angeles area: it's lower cost to live, and the conditions are a lot better, too... Silicon Beach is alive and real, and within 30-40 minutes of there you can find quite affordable housing. I live out towards Ventura, my nice home (3 bed, 3 bath, 2500 square feet) is a 10 minute walk from the beach - and a 45 minute ride from the center of Santa Monica. Some areas of LA are hideously expensive, but much of it would seem exceedingly cheap compared to the Bay area...

    6. Re:Solving the wrong problem by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Or they could maybe build a facility somewhere else and expand there. Somewhere the engineers AND the janitor can get a place to live within a 30 minute drive.

      Like anywhere in the plains or mid-west? Trouble with that is that if they move too far away, then they lose the pool of workers they are seeing for high tech jobs. This pool is looking currently at moving between jobs regularly in an affluent neighborhood, so if they move out where this company is, they cut themselves off from their next job, better pay, upward mobility, and the place they want to live. Cities have been trying to get in on that high tech industry for two decades now, but most can't. In general, people decide where they want to live first, move there, and then look for a job. Certainly, job market can figure into the first part, but it is not the major thing.

  33. Re:Moderation is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Si.....er, correcto!

  34. The trouble isn't the tech workers by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they make enough to afford housing, albeit barely. The trouble is they want services, and that means low paid people. Police, Fire, Emergency responders for a start. Then cooks, laundry, taxis and for some of the better off (who can afford kids) teachers. All of these are at best middle class jobs. Nobody likes paying for them to have nice homes in expensive neighborhoods, but they sure want the services.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The trouble isn't the tech workers by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Police, Fire, Emergency responders for a start.

      Have you actually looked at what those jobs pay in the Bay Area? They are not low-paying jobs, even to start. For example, the current starting salary for a cop in SF is $80k. That's not piles of money, but it's not poor, either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The trouble isn't the tech workers by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      That's actually not very good. Some estimates have median 2-bedroom rent in SF over $50,000 annually. There's a general consensus that you shouldn't spend more than 25%-30% of your income on rent, and on an $80,000 salary that means no more than about $2,000 per month which means a tiny studio apartment in the least expensive parts of town.

      $80,000 may seem like a small fortune, but you seriously need to account for how damned expensive San Francisco is as a city. You're going to be much better off only making $50,000 somewhere in the mid-west but spending $10,000 to rent a much larger apartment.

    3. Re:The trouble isn't the tech workers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      $80,000 may seem like a small fortune,

      No, it certainly does not. i've lived in SF. But the days of being able to live in the big city on one person's salary are gone, and they're not going to come back. Nor, indeed, should they. There is only so much San Francisco to go around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:The trouble isn't the tech workers by kenh · · Score: 1

      That's actually not very good. Some estimates have median 2-bedroom rent in SF over $50,000 annually.

      First off, Firemen typically work several days on, then several days off, allowing them to live quite far from their fire house, since they only commute, on average, once a week.

      Second, your counter argument is a bit unfair - why must a a fireman rent a "median 2-bedroom" apartment", why not look for a below-median single bedroom apartment? Or have you imagined this first-year firefighter already has a family and a stay-at-home spouse?

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:The trouble isn't the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that salary, you get to rent an apartment in North Mathilda Avenue, Sunnyvale. Back then, monthly rent was $1500 just for an apartment with air conditioning effectively located in a forest. I can't say whether being in a North facing apartment with traffic outside would be better or worse than having a South facing apartment next to the car park.

      Want to rent a house in Menlo Park/Palo Alto. That's $3000/month.

    6. Re: The trouble isn't the tech workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know an SF firefighter who commutes weekly from San Diego.

  35. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they cover the long term cancer issues from living on an airfield? Or avoid lawsuits by contractual and employment agreement?

  36. Great Solution by rmullig2 · · Score: 1

    This is perfect, especially for all of their H1-B workers.

    Meet your 7 new roommates. They only speak Hindi but I'm sure you'll get along. Take the bottom bunk in the corner and the bathroom is two floors down.

    Welcome to the team.

  37. Imagine by TheSync · · Score: 3, Informative

    Moffet Field is about 2,200 acres, or 3.4 square miles. If it was rebuilt with the population density of the inner core of Shanghai (~120,000 people per square mile), it could house 400,000 people, along with offices, restaurants, etc.

    1. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and soulless slaves, all! Just end the H1B already.

    2. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly the kind of housing Bay Area residents don't want.

    3. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and soulless slaves, all! Just end the H1B already.

      Not gonna happen. US Millennial snowflakes are shit workers because of their entitlement mindset and being constantly offended by everything and everyone, and firing off lawsuits like they came from a machinegun.

      Fuck 'em. Let 'em starve to death working at Starbucks while trying to pay off hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans for an 'education' they'll never use. Pain is the most effective teacher.

    4. Re:Imagine by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly the kind of housing Bay Area residents don't want.

      Which is why Bay Area housing is crazy expensive.

      The Federal Government should take over Moffet and Alameda air stations and make them high-density mixed-used Federal Districts without Bay Area NIMBYism.

    5. Re:Imagine by TheSync · · Score: 1

      .. and soulless slaves, all! Just end the H1B already.

      Many H1B's seek liberation from samsara through moksha so that they do actually lose the oneness of their soul through its unification with the universal transcendent self of Brahman.

  38. Trailer parks aren't new by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    Trailer parks are not new in Mountain View. There are several within a few blocks of Google. Trailers can run seven figures... because land.

  39. The solution to our problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not "Soylent Green". What I would like to suggest is that instead of building traditional apartments/condos/etc, we build a large building that would occupy the same amount of space, but have radically different living conditions. Imagine the outside walls of each building (not literally outside, though) filled with sleeping tubes (you could probably stuff thousands of people in spaces that used to only hold about 100-200), and have communal kitchens, bathrooms, and entertainment rooms. Give them small refrigerators with locks on them, and lockers to store personal items inside of (also with locks).

    Then change the laws so that the inhabitants don't have to pay rent, but their employers only have to pay them the same amount of money that would be given to someone working for tips. And pay the employees with wooden coins that can only be spent at the company store. Also legalize explosive collars so that if an employee tries to quit his or her job, you can just blow their necks off.

  40. Austin, Texas by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Austin, Texas. It is affordable and has a number of tech industries. The only downside is that it's too damn hot most of the year,

    1. Re:Austin, Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at you, mr. moneybags. austin is only 'affordable' when you compare it to places like the bay area and/or make a couple hundred thousand a year or more.

    2. Re:Austin, Texas by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Austin, Texas. It is affordable and has a number of tech industries. The only downside is that it's too damn hot most of the year,

      First, that is a major, horrible down side. Living in a state that can kill you if your AC fails is way below ideal. Second, the traffic in Austin is a goddamned nightmare. It was bad when I lived there twenty years ago and by all accounts from the people I know who live there still, it's far, far worse now. If you can't find housing near work, you're fucked.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Austin, Texas by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I still live here. Traffic is horrible and as one person put it succinctly, Austin was built for maybe 200K people and it is now around 1 million. I'd also add while not as pricey as the bay area, it is pricey for texas. And because the way the state does education funding, and because austin is pricey, the prop tax equation says we pay for a good chunk of the whole state's education bill, which makes the expensive housing even more expensive. I checked out houston and a place bigger than mine (1.3X) was 1/2 the price. And because the state hates austin, it tweaks with us whenever it can(like the education prop tax). We are the black sheep of texas and the legislature hits us wherever it can.

    4. Re:Austin, Texas by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Too bad they couldn't push some of that stuff out to Waco, huh? It seems conveniently located. Was their government tech-unfriendly, or was it the uh... reputation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Austin, Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because the state hates austin, it tweaks with us whenever it can(like the education prop tax). We are the black sheep of texas and the legislature hits us wherever it can.

      Texas doesn't have an income tax, so property taxes are what mostly funds the schools. Austin is property rich, so taxes are redistributed to property poor districts. Why are you complaining? Progressives drone on and on about redistribution.

    6. Re:Austin, Texas by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Living in a state that can kill you if your AC fails is way below ideal.

      Billions of people lived in hot climates, including Austin, long before ACs were invented. The vast majority of people living in hot climates still don't have AC.

      I worked for 3 years in an un-ACed office in Shanghai, which has a climate similar to Houston (worse than Austin). I wore shorts, sandals, a damp t-shirt, and had a small fan under my desk. I survived.

  41. Bangalore on the Bay by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    Lovely.

  42. backwards by sad_ · · Score: 1

    sometimes it just feels we're going backwards in time, factory workers used to get housing provided to them, close to the factory.
    all the shops & bars in the neighbourhood would also be owned by the factory and so people were mostly spending all their money back to the factory.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because "the company" is providing some products/services to it's employees isn't necessarily a bad thing. In this case it seems quite advantageous given that your average person would have no chance at negotiating a deal with a major government organization for leasing an area for (in this case) residential use in an area with a housing crisis. Your issue comes into play when employees are forced to use those products/services via company policy or location AND those products/services are out of line (either price or quality wise) with ones they could get under normal circumstances. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of that in this case.

  43. This is entirely a government-caused problem. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All we need to solve this is a free market for housing, without all these fucking NIMBYs using their local city councils to prevent new construction.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:This is entirely a government-caused problem. by dvase · · Score: 1

      But why doesn't the free market respond by moving jobs to less expensive areas of the country?

    2. Re:This is entirely a government-caused problem. by jcr · · Score: 1

      That's happening all the time. Texas is growing like crazy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  44. hopefully hyperloop is built soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hyperloop will significantly decrease housing prices in the bay area. Hell I would gladly live in Texas and commute to the Bay area for a 20-30 minute commute each day with no traffic :-)

    Hyperloop will be the deflationary force everyone needs to bring housing prices back down to reality.

  45. That makes me pay more taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Higher property values don't mean much unless one sells (equity conversion), and it also means higher taxes, so NIMBY is a double-edged sword.

  46. The working telecommuters of California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just telecommute in. Best of both world.

  47. Just move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's an ample supply of real estate for both housing and business if you just get out of the stupid overpriced Bay Area.

  48. The company town is back by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Google is a tech company - if affordable housing is a problem, why not let most of the staff telecommute from less expensive areas?

    1. Re:The company town is back by kenh · · Score: 1

      if affordable housing is a problem, why not let most of the staff telecommute from less expensive areas?

      Or, you know, relocate to almost any other county in America?

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:The company town is back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not outsource operations to Pajeet the Indian? He will gladly do it for $3/hour (be sure to provide a designated shitting street for him to shit on)

  49. Google's plan will likely be sunk by same problems by Koreantoast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TechCrunch published a fantastic essay a few years back explaining the very complex, interlocking set of political interests and problems that have caused Bay Area housing costs to explode. Surge in high paying tech jobs, extreme NIMBY by neighborhood councils, California legislation, owls, and well meaning activists have led to the complete cluster that the SF housing market is today. Construction costs have never been a significant issue. I also feel like Google's plans are going to be disrupted by these same factors once the vested powers figure out what's going on.

  50. Taking it down to your level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of lowering the cost of housing, this will lower the quality of housing and keep the cost about the same. Google wins, not the renter.

  51. That makes me use a car! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Car culture. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  52. Time To GTFO! by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that most rational people would look at this and everything else going on in that part of the country and come to the conclusion that it's time to get the fuck outta there.

    The desire to live in some locale despite the obvious Housing/Transportation/Food(?) costs just so they can say they live there or go jogging by the bay is indicative of some really screwed up priorities, maybe even a mild mental disorder.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  53. Little boxes... by jtara · · Score: 1

    Little boxes on the hillside,
    Little boxes made of ticky tacky,
    Little boxes on the hillside,
    Little boxes all the same.
    There's a green one and a pink one
    And a blue one and a yellow one,
    And they're all made out of ticky tacky
    And they all look just the same.

    And the people in the houses
    All went to the university,
    Where they were put in boxes
    And they came out all the same,
    And there's doctors and lawyers,
    And business executives,
    And they're all made out of ticky tacky
    And they all look just the same.

    And they all play on the golf course
    And drink their martinis dry,
    And they all have pretty children
    And the children go to school,
    And the children go to summer camp
    And then to the university,
    Where they are put in boxes
    And they come out all the same.

    And the boys go into business
    And marry and raise a family
    In boxes made of ticky tacky
    And they all look just the same.
    There's a green one and a pink one
    And a blue one and a yellow one,
    And they're all made out of ticky tacky
    And they all look just the same.

    1. Re:Little boxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep being a selfish bunch of cunts and the crunch will come when companies realize it is cheaper to move away pick any city in America with a civilized level of bandwidth OK there are not many and then your high value mediocre homes will drop down to what they are really worth.
      I am guessing this area is not full of 5000-10000 square foot homes but that's where your prices is.
      When times are good the ignorant masses never believe it will ever change.

  54. I cant wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a fantastic place to raise your family!

  55. Re: [not quite] Time To GTFO! by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2

    Or, you know, a shit-load of cash.

    Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook (I think) amongst others are all in and around that area, and they pay very well. Sure, you'll be paying through the nose for a house/flat, but if you see yourself as having a career here, then that house/flat becomes an investment. Property values aren't likely to drop significantly in the next decade or so, in fact they're very likely to increase, so money put in now is likely a good return on investment.

    Work, save, wait, quit, move.

    That shitty $1M 1500-sq.ft ranch is now worth $1.5M and it'll still sell quickly, pay off your remaining $900k of mortgage and you're left with a pretty large nest egg to go live somewhere else. That's how it's worked out for me, anyway. I bought said shitty 1500 sq.ft house for $760k about 8 years ago, I get paid well, so I've been paying off the mortgage at 2x the monthly rate, and I now owe ~$300k. The house is worth ~$1.4M, Another 7-8 years and it's all mine.

    There can be a plan, even in Silicon Valley. Just play the game and use the rules to your advantage.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  56. Costs of building too high for the rent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What i found most interesting about the article:

    > The Bay Area boasts many sites suitable for modular rental housing, undeveloped so far largely because the cost of traditional building is too high for the rent the facilities could generate

    If even in the Bay Area the Rent cannot pay for building houses .... where can it? Or is building in the Bay Area soo much more expensive?

  57. Ah, the Foxconn Housing Model... by kenh · · Score: 1

    Ah, the Foxconn Housing Model, with an American twist - how "inventive".

    --
    Ken
  58. More and more like China? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that sort of how it works in China? You live in corporate "dorms"?

  59. one step closer to the revolution! (hah!) by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    conditions in the bitmines were deplorable back in '17...
    We lost 217 coders to Starbucks butt just in April.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  60. a real EPCOT by the Bay: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Also modular construction, although I expect this is nowhere what Google has in mind.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  61. Shanty town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google builds shanty town for underpaid disposable workers, tape at 11 ..

  62. does not compute by swell · · Score: 2

    So you slap a prefab on a small lot. The prefab costs 10K, the value of the lot is 1M. Does that make sense? Maybe the lot is on government land and you seem to be getting it almost free ... it's not free however. It's worth 1,000,000 today and far more tomorrow.

    That land value has to be considered. It is far more important than the box you put on it. The only way to maximize the use of that land is to build up. Skyscrapers. Then you can house 500 people on 10M worth of land.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  63. This sounds a lot like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds a lot like corporate feudalism.

  64. They probably do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It takes years of hard work to become a Fireman. It's a highly desirable job. Folks work for years as EMTs beforehand.

    And what about the other jobs I cited? Should everyone be forced to do shift work, live away from their families, maintain separate residences just to provide services to a lucky, wealthy few? How bad of a quality of life are you personally willing to allow? There was just a store on the Indonesians who make Ivanka Trump's cloths (it made the news because she's been making the rounds talking about work/life balance). America could easily go that route and 'solve' the housing crisis but just not caring. After all, it's not a crisis if nobody thinks it is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  65. Great Idea... by Topmounter · · Score: 1

    A return to Paternalism w/ company-owned FEMA trailers! George Pullman would be proud.

  66. company town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of the country calls them company owned trailer parks.
    It will be housing for the H1-b visa holders.

    It will still be an upgrade from Calcutta, for a few months at least.
    Then it will resemble Calcutta.

  67. What about building at ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Larry and servers house. That way everyone would be collocates...

  68. Re: [not quite] Time To GTFO! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Property values aren't likely to drop significantly in the next decade or so, in fact they're very likely to increase

    Sure, because that's what happens when you have a bubble.

  69. Re: [not quite] Time To GTFO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook (I think) amongst others are all in and around that area, and they pay very well.

    Well, with the possible exception of any h/w development / testing, those companies should be able to operate with pretty much all workers being remote.

    I think it would be much more productive to invest the money in making remote working (even) more pervasive that is reacting to the fact that folks are clustering into over-crowded regions.

    There can be a plan, even in Silicon Valley. Just play the game and use the rules to your advantage.

    Right. But it's a bubble (or roulette wheel). You timed it right, but pretty much by definition for there's gonna be a lot of folks who don't. Of course, you could make the same argument about the stock market.