Diana,For Palo Alto in particular, such a tax makes a lot of sense. Businesses want to be here despite it being so expensive, because of proximity to Stanford, Sand Hill Road, etc. We never had a problem before when we did not have three times as many people here during the day than who live here. We not only want the businesses who are here to pay their fair share, but we want businesses who would only stay for a free ride to move elsewhere. We want businesses that are growing far too large to realize they need to move where they can grow rather than ruining Palo Alto so they can grow without regard to the space and consequences (like a cancer). Facebook moved amid lots of similar sky-is-falling concerns about lost jobs and both Facebook and Palo Alto are better for it. They needed a bigger space.The reason you should change your mind and be for it again is that, unlike other communities, Palo Alto has Stanford. Stanford will still be here, and they are not only a huge job generator, they are a huge local entrepreneurship generator. If a business tax moves out the not-so-committed and selfish/cheapskates that don't want to pay their fair share to be here (in this already expensive place), then it will make room again for the entrepreneurs. In fact, Stanford wants to expand. A head tax on businesses would give those who are not that committed to Palo Alto a reason to go, and make space for Stanford's expansion.The head tax should probably be three times as much per employee for any business improperly occupying spaces in retail or residential areas. This would be a far better incentive to follow the rules and keep businesses from making Palo Alto into a congested office park as of late.I suggest the money first go into a fund to allow the City to buy the major retail areas. The only way most ordinary people can hang on here is to buy something, no matter how squalid, no matter the sacrifice. Otherwise, you can never compete and you're always up to your eyeballs in costs. It's been that way for at least the last 40 years. Because once you buy, you aren't subjected to the vagaries of the widely swinging market here. This would bring stability to retail in this area. More importantly, it would allow the City to be like Stanford is with its faculty. Stanford maintains beautiful neighborhoods that allow a quality of life more like in the Midwest. This is important for attracting faculty and staff. Stanford owns the land and leases it cheap, and people buy the houses at below market rate and have all the benefits of home ownership. Everyone wins. Stanford's owning the land allows them to derive an ever greater benefit without paying more.In this way, if Palo Alto owned the retail areas in Palo Alto, the City could support a vibrant retail sector in town that would not be threatened every time there is a boom (more than threatened this time, decimated). The cost of land is always painful here whether it's a boom time or recession, but once the City owns the property, then it becomes like Stanford. The greatest benefit is that the City could require as a condition of leasing buildings on its land, that businesses pay their workers and subcontractors competitive wages. Thus, traditionally low-wage workers could be a competitive part of the local economy, equal with tech. Retail businesses would be able to afford to do this because of much lower and stable rents, and not having to worry about tech companies taking over retail spaces, not having to worry about being suddenly displaced after serving our community for years. Residents would have retail businesses local to them again and would not have to drive all over kingdom come for things like baby stores.The greatest thing about it is that once the land is purchased, Palo Alto can continue to derive such a benefit into the future, and it only gets better. The benefit will become greater as the years pass, without it costing Palo Alto anything more.The downtowns and other retail areas would then become like our schools and community centers in a way -- we could never afford them at today's market rates, we can only afford them because we own the land.Midtown Shopping center changed hands for just $15M and change (compared to the Arastradero Road "improvements", a real steal). If we had a head tax and a provision that the City had first right of refusal to buy at retail property at market rates, then the City would own Midtown Shopping Center and could start on the path I outlined above. In the future, as the City is able to derive more and more benefit from this by ensuring its traditionally low-wage workers make a living wage, they will be able to become active participants in the local economy and buy their own teeny tiny homes like the rest of us and thus at least get that stability of owning, such as it is, and of living in the community.There are also issues of health and safety having to do with three times the population coming here during the day, every day, in addition to all the other impacts like traffic. Our City has costs associated with this that are far greater than typical office worker costs because of the overcrowding. The development applications don't even pay for themselves, residents are footing the bill for the costs. Palo Alto should also use the money to establish a health and safety fund as an equal priority, because it's shown how everything else crowds it out.Lastly, Palo Alto should designate affordable housing funds for the disabled who require universal design in order to live equal lives. The disabled are mention in inclusionary housing rules but completely ignored. The companies that want to make Palo Alto their own private company towns push for density, but this density has gotten us a lot of new housing stock that people with mobility problems (who make up at least 10% of the population) cannot even visit, much less live in. Because housing for people with disabilities such as these requires space and universal design usually means short buildings, no one will create the housing people need. Quite frankly, the companies who want the public to pay for their short-term workforce needs make it impossible. Having a fund would mean it could be possible to essentially subsidize housing that meets this sector of disability which is simply not going to be served under the Build-Baby-Build environment. Safety, too, gets put in last place unless there is a more solid budget item, and there are many serious needs going unplanned for around the large daytime population here.I say YES YES YES to an office business head tax (retail excluded) that is progressive to put pressure on businesses that are too big and those occupying parts of Palo Alto where they are deriving a lot of benefit at great loss and expense to the public.
Apple Retail Store overcrowding is a problem worth solving
2ff7e9595c
Comments