New Skype employees Palo Alto Issues, posted by Too Much Traffic, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Dec 27, 2010 at 1:17 pm
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.
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 the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, 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 the South of Midtown neighborhood, 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 the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, 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 Equality for all, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, 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 Equality for all, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, 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 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
Posted by Equality for all, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, 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.