Town Square

Post a New Topic

New Skype employees

Original post made by Too Much Traffic on Dec 27, 2010

I read in the Daily Post on Friday that Skype plans to have 500 new employees to their Palo Alto location. Most of you may recall the big outcry from certain former council member and members of the public regarding the Stanford Hospital project and the fact that there would be 2200 new employees by 2025 (Web Link).
my question is will the city be making the same demands from Skype (housing for employees, a guarantee no new net car trips into the city, big bucks to mitigate traffic etc and whatever else was on the wish list of kishimoto/drekmeier/morton) that were made of Stanford. Skype will be bringing in these new employees very quickly--the Stanford project will bring in 2200 new employees by 2025.
I think Skype should not be exempt from these demands otherwise people will have the impression that there is a double standard when it comes to dealing with Stanford vs any other employer in the city. In fact, as I have stated many times before, I think that these demands should be made of EVERY and ANY employer in the city.

Comments (14)

Posted by not a shill, a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Is Skype building new buildings, or are they just recycling buildings that were abandoned after the dot com bust?


Posted by So silly, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2010 at 3:29 pm

No wonder Palo Alto's tax revenue is declining. Making these silly demands on potential employers merely serves to push businesses out of town. A great example of this is FACEBOOK who are about to abandon their offices off Page Mill Road and move to empty accommodations in Menlo Park. Menlo Park will then benefit from Facebook's employees spending money MP.

Meanwhile, Stanford is building executive offices in Redwood City to house their administrative staff. They are planning to get out of ungrateful Palo Alto, and their employees will be generating tax dollars for Redwood City.

Palo Alto is very quickly getting a reputation for not wanting businesses in PA. Ultimately, that will hurt PA's retail businesses and ultimately the City's retail tax revenue.


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 27, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Not a shill-the issue is not about new buildings or old ones, the issue is the number of employees and the traffic they generate (according to the anti-traffic crowd in the city).500 employes is a sizable number. The stanford number is forecast for 15 years from now, the skype number is this coming year.you cannot make demands of one employer and not the others, inked of course the object is to extort money from stanford with the knowledge that any other business would go to a more welcoming city. Our policy regarding stanford and businesses in general is a joke.


Posted by not a shill, a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 27, 2010 at 4:11 pm

If they are recycling old buildings, then the developer would have already paid for and the city will have already have built the infrastructure needed to support them. New buildings often need new roads, utilities, etc. that someone has to pay for.


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm

The issue is not old or new infrastructure.stanford has ben continuously bashed by some for creating traffic problems etc.a company with 500 new workers will certainly create traffic problems (based on the stanford numbers).also remember that stanford is replacing old buildings and has offered palo alto plenty of money for mitigation.skype and every employer in town should be held to the same standards if the kishimoto doctrine is correct (even one new net car trip into the chitty is too many).so it is not about the roads it is about the people that use them.


Posted by So silly, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Equality says: "the issue is the number of employees and the traffic they generate (according to the anti-traffic crowd in the city)"

Tesla Motors is moving into offices off Arastradero Road and they haven't been asked to provide housing or limit the number of cars entering the City, so why should Skype?

Stanford has got the message that's why they are moving their administration offices to Redwood City, and backing out of expanding the Stanford Shopping Center.


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm

If tesla and skype are not asked to provide housing and cut car trips then stanford should not be asked either.of course we know why there is a double standard. Our city leaders prefer am adversarial relationship with stanford rather than working for the mutual benefit.this is driven by our short sighted,"green"council and their"living in the 20th century" NIMBYists.


Posted by 2200 just for starters, a resident of Southgate
on Dec 27, 2010 at 6:35 pm

2200 new employees is just what the Stanford developer is predicting. You don't think a developer would er, lie, do you? or exaggerate?
Actually 2200 is just full time employees. It does not include part time or contract workers. The real number of workers they are bringing in is closer to 4,000. Not counting spouses and children.


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 27, 2010 at 7:14 pm

No,2200 just for starters, the figure is from the city commissioned EIR not from the dev developer.and the figure is projected for 2025.if we are worried about new employees in the city, as the "too much traffic"crowd loves to say all the time, we should have a moratorium on new hiring in the city.of course we want the tax revenue and other money from stanford and other businesses. Can you say "hypocrisy"


Posted by 2200 just for starters, a resident of Southgate
on Dec 28, 2010 at 12:41 am

@Equality,
take a closer look at what the 2,200 represents. It's only full time employees.
Anyway it's a multiple of what any other company is bringing in.
Stanford owns huge amounts of land. They should also build schools for the children. Palo Alto schools are in turmoil with the increased enrollments.


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 28, 2010 at 7:28 am

2200-are you suggesting that stanford force all of their employee s to live in housing on campus.i would like to see your evidence to back up your claims about full and part time employees.


Posted by Neighbor, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Dec 28, 2010 at 9:45 am

2200 says: "They should also build schools for the children." That is exactly what Stanford has already done. They provided the land for both Gunn and Paly and also Lucille M. Nixon and Escondido, that is why so many kids in the school district must go over to Stanford to go to school.

All elementary children living in both Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto Hills must attend Lucille M. Nixon on the Stanford Campus because the School District closed their school Fremont Hills.

Stanford employees kids have never been able to fill the schools built on Stanford land, so they must drag children in from other parts of the district. The last thing the School District needs is more schools built on Stanford land.


Posted by Resident 0.1, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 1, 2011 at 11:26 am

First we need to confront the big lie that population in the Bay Area has to grow in order for residents to prosper. ABAG is supporting failed policy. I've lived in the Bay Area for 60 years and have watched the growth. Where is the prosperity? In the hands of a few.

There is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline. And that is the situation in which we are now.

No economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. The economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible. And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above life-sustaining ecosystems.

Do we know if the new Skype employees will represent a net gain of employees/residents to Palo Alto? Do we know if Skype is using an existing building? We should be against the Stanford hospital project (except for bringing buildings up to standard) - we should not approve larger buildings and thousands of new employees.

How much "Palo Alto" water will be needed for the proposed hospital project? How much has Palo Alto water use increased with the recent developments (High Street, Campus for Jewish Life and Housing, other dense housing developments)? This is a recent update on California's
water scarcity problem: Web Link


Posted by Equality for all, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jan 1, 2011 at 2:01 pm

The comment above that we should be against the stanford hospital project is ridiculous.an institution like stanford has to provide 21st century health care.it is unfortunate that many in palo alto are so short sighted and treat stanford as some kind of evil empire. I would hope that the number of people that buy into jack morton's claims would be a small minority. It may also be time for stanford to start diverting find from palo alto coffers.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Veggie Grill coming soon to Mountain View's San Antonio Center
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 3,250 views

College applications: round three
By Sally Torbey | 26 comments | 2,128 views

Is HBO's Silicon Valley Any Good?
By Anita Felicelli | 22 comments | 2,126 views

Finding mentors in would-be bosses
By Jessica T | 0 comments | 1,832 views

PAUSD Leadership Challenges
By Paul Losch | 22 comments | 1,632 views