Will subsidies for developers trickle down to provide more affordable housing for high-income people? Monday@City Council | A Pragmatist's Take | Douglas Moran | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A Pragmatist's Take

By Douglas Moran

E-mail Douglas Moran

About this blog: Real power doesn't reside with those who make the final decision, but with those who decide what qualifies as the viable choices. I stumbled across this insight as a teenager (in the 1960s). As a grad student, I belonged to an org...  (More)

View all posts from Douglas Moran

Will subsidies for developers trickle down to provide more affordable housing for high-income people? Monday@City Council

Uploaded: Dec 2, 2018
At this Monday's City Council meeting, the current pro-developer majority is expected to give a big early-Christmas gift to developers and large property owners. This is being promoted under the guise of encouraging "affordable housing", but when you look at the details, it is anything but. I recommend that you read the critique "^Trickle-Down Housing Proposal May Make Parking Far Worse^" by Jeff Levinsky, Co-Chair Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) Zoning Committee, 2018-11-19.

The ^76-page Staff Report^ is available online.
You can email your comments to City Council at City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org and have as your subject line "Dec 3 Meeting: #12: Amending Title 18, Housing Ordinance" to help be seen in time.
At the meeting itself, there will be no opportunity for public comments -- that was done last week and closed. However, showing up in person to listen to Council considerations can have an influence. It is estimated to start at 6:15 PM and allotted 3.75 hours (^Agenda^).

Whenever you hear the term "Affordable Housing", ask "Affordable for whom?" Surprisingly often, it means young professionals, such as engineers at high-paying companies (Google, Facebook ...), lawyers ... What most people think of as Affordable Housing is technically Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing.

Although the proposed ordinance has some mentions of facilitating BMR housing, it expect that the rest of the ordinance will make it harder to build BMR housing. It will further drive up the cost of properties, making it even more difficult to get enough funding for BMR projects. In discussions of the housing crisis, one economic fact that is religiously ignored is that when you allow more to be built on a property, you are enabling higher revenues. The property owners will raise the price of their properties to capture most of its increased value, leaving whomever is redeveloping it to get roughly the same Return on Investment (ROI). However, to maintain the same ROI -- a percentage -- on the higher investment, the new owner needs to get more in rents. Increasing the supply of housing can increase its price because the crucial supply-demand interaction is not the number of housing units but rather the land for building.(foot#1)

So how did this inconvenient truth fail to be part of the Staff Report? The Staff held one perfunctory meeting with the general public, allowing that box to be checked off. And they held a multitude of meeting with the large property owners and developers where they told Staff that they needed a wide range of concessions if they were to build more housing. Note: "concession" is a minor euphemism for transferring costs from the developers to the general public. I see no evidence that Staff did anything except credulously accepting these self-interested claims.

The proffered justification for developers needing these public subsidies, aka corporate welfare? The cost of building is so high. And why is that? Because of the local and regional policies that developers and the government bureaucrats have pushed for over 3 decades despite warnings are readily visible evidence that those policies were making the situation worse (and making many developers rich). As I see it, the proposed ordinance would have residents indirectly pay to make the Housing Crisis worse.

----False accusations that Palo Alto isn't building housing----

Development typically occurs in spurts. In the 1990s and early 2000s a lot of housing was built in Palo Alto, far above the targets assigned by regional authorities (ABAG and MTC). How was this acknowledged? First, by raising the targets for the next round, while cities that hadn't met their targets had them lowered. Second, because most of the new housing units were Market-Rate or in the top tier of BMR, we were attacked for the shortage in the lower tiers. Did the regional authorities care about why developers were doing this? No. The regional bureaucracies are prime examples of what happens when granted power without responsibility (or accountability).

When Palo Alto focuses on catching up in the lower tiers of BMRs, the attacks switch to not providing enough housing for young professionals. Whichever way we turn, the pro-developer forces will insatiably demand more and more.

So how do such false claims come about? Cherry-picking. There has been little housing completed in the last few years.
To see for yourself: A compilation of housing starts since 1997 -- ^Intro^ and ^spreadsheet^ -- has been created and maintained by Elaine Meyer, a leader of the University South neighborhood.

----Data? We ain't got no data. We don't need no data. I don't have to show you any stinkin' data!----

The housing development on the former VTA parking lot at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill was approved as "car-lite", that is, reduced parking on the assumption that many of the residents wouldn't have cars. This was pitched as a test or experiment of how this concept might play out in Palo Alto. But it is too early to see results.

On the other hand, TMA (Traffic Management Associations), TDM (Traffic Demand Management) and a bushel of other acronyms cited as ways that traffic and parking can be reduced. These have been going on long enough that we should have data. But we don't. Or at least it isn't a factor in the Staff Report and recommendation.

----Example absurdities----

1. The proposed ordinance would grant parking exemption to 1500 sqft of ground floor retail in buildings on University Avenue and California Avenue. While some retail might have very low number of customers + employees present, for any one restaurant, the shortfall of parking would likely be significant and the cumulative effect substantial. Recognize that University Avenue has restaurants that are regional destinations. I didn't find any explanation in the Staff Report why this was warranted and why it wouldn't cause problems.

2. The proposed ordinance would allow developers to count rooftop decks against the requirements that they provide open space commensurate with the tenants (^page 22 of Updated Staff Report^). Palo Alto is already below the standards for park space per resident, and this provides the developer with a cheap way out of an increasingly expensive burden on the rest of the community. Oh, we should expect such a deck to be available for very long, given City Hall's long history of refusing to enforce such provisions (see the PA Weekly's "^Editorial: A broken code enforcement system^").

----To implement the Comprehensive Plan, we had to violate the Comprehensive Plan----

The proposed ordinance would weaken Ground-floor Retail protection in primary business districts. There is a slogan "Retail loves retail" that is a reminder that retail success is crucial dependent on its concentration. I was surprise to learn that the presence of just one or two empty store fronts -- or of businesses other than retail and services -- could significantly reduce the sales in the nearby stores. The Comprehensive Plan stress the importance of protecting retail as part of having walkable communities. The ordinance says "Forget all this" in order to facilitate BMR ("affordable") housing in those business districts. Why couldn't such a project have ground-floor retail? Because BMR projects are dependent on grants from the County, the State and the US government, and mixed-use buildings don't qualify for those grants. However, this is likely irrelevant: Palo Alto has had great difficult winning such grants, and the price of properties in the business districts could be effectively disqualifying.

----^Trickle-down economics^----

This term was created by the comedian Will Rodgers in 1932 (during the Great Depression): "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down.Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow.But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands.They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue." It is best known as the tax policy of Reagan administration (1980-1988) and commonly referred to as "Voodoo Economics". It also describes part of Trump's "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (although some companies did pass money through to their employees). The basic analogy is that if you throw a big banquet for the very rich, they, in their drunken gluttony, will cause enough food to wind up on the floor to benefit everyone else. Another common analogy is "A rising tide lifts all boat." Let's do a quick calculation: In a harbor of a quarter square mile (half mile square), it takes over 52 million gallons to raise the boats one foot.

Despite Tickle-down being a long discredited approach, it appears to be the basis of the proposed ordinance. Give the big property owners and developers enough "concessions" to juice up their profits and they might, just might, not have rents as high.

But that seems to be the reasoning that appeals to the current Council majority: Liz Kniss, Adrian Fine, Greg Tanaka, Greg Scharff and Cory Wolbach (the last two won't return to Council next year).

----Footnotes----
1. Increasing supply can increase prices:
Note: I have cited these essays in earlier blogs on Housing.
"^Housing Costs and Density^" by Michael Goldman, blog of 2017-01-03.Goldman is a member of the Sunnyvale City Council.
"^Is There a Housing Crisis?^" by Michael Goldman, blog of 2017-02-12.
Introduction: "In previous posts we looked at the Supply side of Housing's Demand-Supply equation and found increased supply would not lower costs, or even keep costs from rising. //Now we will look at the Demand side of the equation.We will find that the current high demand that is driving up prices is only temporary and will subside (in fact, is subsiding now) in the SF Bay Area.Job retraining, additional local public/private transit,and tax incentives for corporations to expand where skilled people and affordable housing already exist (i.e., not the SF Bay Area)are progressive policies that will alleviate the 'housing shortage' ."


----
An ^abbreviated index by topic and chronologically^ is available.


----Boilerplate on Commenting----
The ^Guidelines^ for comments on this blog are different from those on Town Square Forums. I am attempting to foster more civility and substantive comments by deleting violations of the guidelines.

I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted. My primary goal is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable back-and-forth, but such misrepresentations also indicate that the author is unwilling/unable to participate in a meaningful, respectful conversation on the topic.
A slur is not an argument. Neither are other forms of vilification of other participants.

If you behave like a ^Troll^, do not waste your time protesting when you get treated like one.
We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +   7 people like this
Posted by Every Human Needs Housing, a resident of University South,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 12:03 pm

Every Human Needs Housing is a registered user.

Housing for whom? Everyone! Housing is a basic human need for people of all incomes. Increasing production of market-rate housing with inclusionary zoning requirements will increase the overall supply of housing units, including those for lower incomes. We also need to allow more 100% affordable units and exempting retail enables this, as non-profit housing developers cannot get financing for retail. The narrative presented here is unfortunate, as market-rate rental units do not enrich the wealthiest residents (who can afford to purchase expensive single family homes). By invoking "trickle down economics," Jeff Levinsky unfairly pits renters of differing income levels against one another, demonizing much needed rental housing supply as inequitable. In reality, maintaining our status quo means that the rich landowners get richer, without making any investments to actually improve the lives of renters.


 +   22 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 1:07 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

The poster above is wrong. It's been proven beyond any shadow of doubt that increasing density in desirable areas actually create more demand for housing and puts great upward pressure on home prices and rents. It's impossible to build into affordability. In desirable towns like Palo Alto, the ore housing you build, the more expensive they become. Some relief can come only from companies relocating elsewhere and from freezing commercial development.

The notion that high salaried tech workers need the public to subsidize housing for them and give up their quality of life is also highly skewed.


 +   21 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 3:28 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

The first comment is an example of what is too common in today's politics: A simplistic, and irrelevant, slogan is used to avoid addressing a very complex problem. By making it a moral issue, the commenter rejects considerations of the rights of others, costs, tradeoffs, ... When phrased as a moral right, the advocate is freed to demand unlimited sacrifices from others.

The issue here is not a right to housing. The commenter is advocating a right of people to live wherever they want and have others -- the public -- subsidize their choice. If the commenter was willing to go beyond the simplistic slogan, s/he would see that they are implicitly advocating that employers have a right to expand in an area with housing shortages and have the public pay large subsidies for the consequent movement of more people to that area.

Lower income people are among those paying the larger "tax" to support these subsidies: Increasing housing costs force them to move further and further from their jobs and that increased commute can be a substantial tax on them ("time is money").


 +   15 people like this
Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 3:57 pm

mauricio is a registered user.

I actually agree that the right to housing(and healthcare) is a basic human right, but that does not mean that people have a right to live anywhere they choose. I could have used that meme, when I was much younger and had little money to demand subsidized housing that would fit my income to live in:Malibu, Bel Air, Woodside, the Upper East Side, etc. You get my drift. There are many areas in our country with low density, inexpensive, relatively available housing and desperately in need of economic development which the relocation of SC tech companies could provide. The fact that zero pressure is applied on local companies to relocate and expand there is truly scandalous.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Every Human Needs Housing, a resident of University South,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm

Every Human Needs Housing is a registered user.

Mauricio, you demonstrate a poor understanding of what the evidence shows. Housing does not exhibit induced demand. More housing works to get more people housed. Palo Alto has the worst jobs/housing imbalance and has a duty to house the citizens who serve this community. There is considerable evidence that decades of limiting housing have resulted in growing homelessness and poverty. Much focus has been paid to limiting office, but not building offices doesn't house human beings.


Doug, you mischaracterize my argument. I don't want/shouldn't need to live in subsidized housing. Additionally, I will also note that homeowners enjoy massive government subsidies via prop 13. I, a market-rate renter, enjoy no government subsidies and am subject to rent increase or eviction that may force me back onto a market with very limited housing choices.


 +   16 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 5:52 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Every Human Needs Housing:

> "Housing does not exhibit induced demand."

Actually, it does. There are a multitude of examples from cities in the US and around the world. One component of this is that when high-tech or similar job is added to the area, it creates a cascading need for many other services: public safety, public works, medical, retail, ... And each of these increases its own need for supporting jobs. While each of these increases is small to minuscule, the cumulative total is about 4 additional housing units (many economic studies).

Even if the housing unit is to get a homeless person off the street or out of their car, there are these cascading effects, although of a potentially different magnitude.

> "you mischaracterize my argument. I don't want/shouldn't need to live in subsidized housing."

I didn't say that you wanted to live in subsidized housing, but rather that the policies you seem to be advocating would involve substantial subsidies (to developers) to create that housing.

> "Additionally, I will also note that homeowners enjoy massive government subsidies via prop 13."

Under Prop 13, the property tax burden has shifted from businesses to homeowners. It used to be about 2/3's coming from business and is now only about 1/3. The reason is that private homes turn over much more frequently and thus get adjusted up to the market rate. Rental housing is among the business that tends to turn over slowly, if at all since Prop 13. Aside: The sponsors of Prop 13 were apartment owners.

Consequently, many renters do live in housing subsidized by Prop 13 but that subsidy goes to the owner of the rental property who decides how much of that will "trickle down" to the renters.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Every Human Needs Housing, a resident of University South,
on Dec 2, 2018 at 8:42 pm

Every Human Needs Housing is a registered user.

While you there has been documented induced demand when development transforms low-income neighborhoods into desirable places to live (e.g., Mission District in San Francisco), the literature doesn't support the idea that building housing causes housing prices to go up on a macro level and certainly not within very high cost places with lots of housing regulations like Palo Alto.

Yes, new housing does certainly induce demand for services. The community should be working together to create solutions for either reducing demand for services (parking/driving) or by increasing available services (new parks, schools). Retail is struggling to survive already. I think retailers would benefit from an increased customer base.

I don't consider it a "subsidy" to a developer to allow them to build units that are naturally less expensive. The developer doesn't eat the cost for the parking spots/larger units, the future tenants pay for those things. I don't think developers are the good guys but treating them like them like the enemy isn't helpful either because ultimately, we need them to build homes for people so people have places to live. I'm guessing you probably live in a house that was built by a developer at some point. Housing is a community benefit.

I agree that prop 13 disproportionately advantages businesses (and I'm guessing we can agree on a split roll repeal). Also agree that landlords get their costs controlled by the government in the form of a property tax break but benefit from the revenue of of the market rate, paid by renters who receive no such relief (I certainly have yet to receive any generosity).

I probably won't reply again to this chat, but thank you for trying to foster civil dialogue and attempting to understand my perspective in good faith.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by CommercialProperty tax loopholes, a resident of College Terrace,
on Dec 3, 2018 at 2:57 pm

When commercial property changes hands there are legal ways this transactions can structured so that the original property tax is carried forward without a new property tax assessment. Loopholes in Prop 13 written for commercial property owners. That's what real estate lawyers who specialize in commercial real estate transactions,such as council member Greg Scharf, are expert at. I understand one of the ways is to have commercial property owned by an LLC, so that when the principals of the LLC change property held within the LLC is not considered a sale. Also, also I understand that as long as no one person owns more than 49.5% of the company this also does not trigger a property tax assessment.

Which is why residents pay approximately 75% of the property taxes.

And thank you Doug for once again presenting us with such excellent information.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Loopholes above, a resident of College Terrace,
on Dec 3, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Apologies to Doug and readers for not rereading and editing my email before sending.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Housing Advocate, a resident of Palo Alto High School,
on Dec 6, 2018 at 4:25 pm

Doug, I flagged your 3:28 pm post because it appears to violate the rules of your blog, to wit: "I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted."

I agree with Mauricio that you mischaracterized what he said. He did not say, as you wrote, that "The commenter is advocating a right of people to live wherever they want and have others -- the public -- subsidize their choice."

Please delete your 3:28 pm post.

Thanks.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Dec 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Housing Advocate

My post that you cite was not responding to the post by Mauricio but to "The first comment...", which was written by "Every Human Needs Housing".
The comment of mine that you cited was roughly aligned with the points made by Mauricio, although I didn't cite him.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Housing Advocate, a resident of Palo Alto High School,
on Dec 6, 2018 at 6:23 pm

Doug, thanks for the correction. I agree, I intended to refer to the post by Every Human Needs Housing, not the one by Mauricio. Regardless, you mischaracterized what the poster said. Please delete your 3:28 pm post.

Thanks.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Dec 6, 2018 at 9:56 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Housing Advocate

I don't see how my post mischaracterized that of "Every Human Needs Housing". That post started with "Housing for whom? Everyone! Housing is a basic human need for people of all incomes." The consequences of this position has been widely discussed, including in the blog post, and unless s/he argued against that background knowledge and context, s/he was accepting it and thus it was legitimate to criticize it. Analogy: If one smashes a fragile object, it is not a mischaracterization to say that they broke it.

Aside: "EHNH" seriously mischaracterized Jeff Levinsky's position, both in the article linked to and what I know of him from elsewhere.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Housing Advocate, a resident of Palo Alto High School,
on Dec 7, 2018 at 2:09 pm

Doug, I'm disappointed by your hypocrisy. The rules of your blog state: "I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted."

Your 3:28 PM post states, "The commenter is advocating a right of people to live wherever they want and have others -- the public -- subsidize their choice."

At no point in his/her post, however, did Every Human Needs Housing assert that people have the right to live "wherever they want," nor did he/she assert that people have a right to have "the public" subsidize where they choose to live. And I think it's noteworthy that Every Human Needs Housing disputed your characterization of his post, which indicates to me that your post was "likely to provoke a response of 'That is not what was said.'"

In addition to misrepresenting Every Human Needs Housing's post, I think your response to Every Human Needs Housing was hyperbolic and inflammatory and unfortunately set the type of tone that I thought you were trying to avoid.

By the way, I can't help but notice your classic Whataboutism --- President Trump would be so proud of you! Whether Every Human Needs Housing mischaractized Jeff Levinsky's position is irrelevant to whether you mischaracterized Every Human Needs Housing's post.

I hope you will have the intellectual maturity and integrity to evaluate your own posts objectively in light of the rules you set for your blog.

Thanks.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Dec 7, 2018 at 6:01 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

RE: Housing Advocate

> At no point in his/her post, however, did Every Human Needs Housing assert that people have the right to live "wherever they want,"

If one speaks against having limits, one is advocating no limits. The claim of "no limits" has been common for years among housing advocates and elected officials. In a candidate forum in response to a question about State housing mandates (Q1), Assemby member Marc Berman stated that we needed to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live here (see my blog of 2016-05-13). Council member Adrian Fine has been almost as explicit, but waffles when pressed (example report in my blog Council Candidate Forums of 2016-10-18).

> nor did he/she assert that people have a right to have "the public" subsidize where they choose to live.=

The proposed ordinance and this blog -- starting with its title -- was about subsidies ("incentives" and "concessions" are euphemisms dating back at least to the 1970s). If EHNH choses to speak outside the clearly established context, EHNH had the obligation to explicitly state that.

> And I think it's noteworthy that Every Human Needs Housing disputed your characterization of his post,..."

And that comment was blatantly FALSE. I didn't claim that EHNH wanted subsidies for him/herself.

> "...Trump..."

Ad hominem attack. Well over the line into trolling.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by NeilsonBuchanan, a resident of Downtown North,
on Jan 26, 2019 at 12:52 pm

NeilsonBuchanan is a registered user.

Is it certain that no public comments can be made in light of "hanging chad" issues raised in the staff report. Here is a verbatim section from the staff report.

"Since the public hearing has been closed,
Council will resume it's discussion starting with a clarification to one change in the multi-family
district, followed by discussion of changes specific to the California Avenue CC(2) zoning district
and then sites on El Camino Real zoned Neighborhood Commercial CN and Service Commercial
CS. Lastly, staff is seeking clarification on a number of citywide changes to affirm direction on
those recommendations. During the first two portions (multi-family district and CC(2) district),
the conflicted Councilmember(s) will leave the public hearing. Thereafter, the Council as a
whole will consider the third and fourth parts (El Camino Real and Citywide). While this may
appear cumbersome, this is necessitated by the conflict of interest rules while maximizing
Councilmember participation as allowed and feasible."


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Robert, a resident of another community,
on Jan 27, 2019 at 9:21 am

[[off-topic]] is driven purely by his false narrative. It is the same situation with housing.

Your data is all factual, but convincing those people that lack critical thinking skills and that too easily fall for the false narrative being promoted by developers and tech companies is just not possible using facts and logic.

How do you counter "Every Human Needs Housing" with reams of data that proves that what is being proposed will actually cause even more displacement and gentrification? It just generates blank stares from those that have bought into the false narrative.

You need to formulate a simple to understand explanation, with examples of a) the problems caused by rent control, b) the problems caused by uncontrolled growth.

We have often heard politicians say that "everyone should be able to live where ever they want" and it's a talking point that naive people believe. And always throw in "nurses and firefighters (two highly paid professions)" and maybe "live, work, play."

The reality is that single family homeowners in Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca, Stockton, Los Banos, Hollister, Mountain House, and even Salinas, are not anxious to rent a small apartment in Palo Alto, San Jose, or Cupertino for two-four times the cost of their monthly mortgage payment or even for the same monthly mortgage payment. They would rather commute.

Last year there was a story in the San Jose Mercury News about a Red Lobster manager in San Jose that commutes from Stockton. How terrible. But when you read the article you learn that it's because she didn't like living in a small apartment in San Jose. "Gonzalez and her husband bought a house in Stockton last July because they couldn't afford anything closer to her job. The median value for a home in Stockton is $287,000. ...some days Gonzalez feels like she spends so much time driving that she doesn't get to enjoy the four-bedroom house she sacrificed so much for. But she reassures herself that this won't be forever."

The real question we should be asking is this: "Who will pay for the transportation solutions that enable residents of communities with affordable market-rate housing to commute quickly to the job centers of the Bay Area?" Should the transit be subsidized by Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.? These companies are already subsidizing buses to their campuses. Should the transit be subsidized by sales taxes? Or should the people enjoying the lower cost housing in these cities bear the transportation cost for their housing choice?"

The roads and freeways are crowded because we put all the jobs in an area where there is no more land for housing, no more land for roads, and no agency capable of building usable mass transit. Unless the tech companies want to build campuses in the Central Valley, we will just have to deal with the consequence of our success.

Maybe we the vehicle registration fee should not be an "unlimited miles" but instead be based on vehicle miles traveled, say 10¢ per mile after the first 5000 miles per year, with the revenue going to building transit. Someone commuting 150 miles per day would be paying $15 a day toward transit construction.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Kevin, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis,
on Jan 27, 2019 at 1:34 pm

[[Removed: violation of PAOnline rule against posting under multiple aliases.]]


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Peek inside the fine-dining Selby's, opening in Redwood City this summer
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 4,291 views

Homestead Faire at Hidden Villa 4/27
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,237 views

If you do nothing else, do These Three Things
By Sherry Listgarten | 9 comments | 1,176 views

Premarital and Couples: "You're Not Listening to Me!" may mean "I don't feel heard."
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,124 views

All those things our city does – and doesn’t -- do
By Diana Diamond | 8 comments | 1,030 views

 

Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Palo Alto. Voting is open now through May 27. Watch for the results of our 2019 Best Of contest on Friday, July 19.

Vote