11-06-2017, 07:34 PM
(11-06-2017, 02:15 PM)gocard14 link Wrote:The backlash against a university that has been a major driver of The industry that has made the Bay Area an economic juggernaut dumbfounds me. 99.9% of the country would kill to have Stanford in their backyard, and would greet the influx of 10k new highly educated, tax paying and economy driving residents as a godsend.
We get that infrastructure in the bay is taxed already. The solution is to upgrade infrastructure, not to block growth.
Having worked up and down the Peninsula and greater Bay Area/California, peripherally involved in land use decisions for more than 30 years now, this does not surprise me at all. Been to plenty of pitchfork meetings where the local sentiment is "I've got mine; the rest of you Jabronis stay the hell out!!"
I've always thought growth control is vaguely unconstitutional, but that's not what they pay me to worry about.
Toss out the word "sustainable" a lot. Trip generation is usually the key to mitigating the impacts of a more dense urban core. Several shell games they can play with the CEQA docs. "Caltrain! No, um, bicycles!! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!" Shhhhh......
Snappy graphics never hurt either. These guys received permission to build essentially a space station smack dab in the middle of a congested commute corridor.
![[Image: Oct162013-Campus.jpg]](https://s.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/9188b1a9f089f3d51f68d9a302ac0d45/201292288/Oct162013-Campus.jpg)
Alternatively, Stanford could threaten to move to Cupertino.
Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working .I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work. Peter Gibbons
