News


Off Deadline: A sharp warning: 'Housing crisis' threatens Silicon Valley's future

'If the bay was land, it would be filled,' says CEO of regional policy think tank

Silicon Valley may be the economic phenomenon of our time, but unless real inroads are made in alleviating its severe housing shortage and accompanying transportation mess, the region could lose its economic luster and driving core of innovation.

That was a pointed conclusion — a warning with a keen edge of urgency — that emerged from the recent "State of the Valley" conference in San Jose.

The morning-long annual conference at the McEnery Convention Center on Feb. 9 was attended by a sellout audience of about 1,300 leaders from business, government, education and nonprofit organizations from throughout the south bay region and beyond. Congresswoman Kamala Harris had to cancel her scheduled appearance due to the political quagmire in Washington, D.C., but she provided recorded comments.

As for the conference's key message, warnings about housing and transportation problems are not new: Traffic begin to snarl up as far back as the postwar growth years of the late 1940s and 1950s, and freeways and local expressways quickly jammed. In transit, almost nothing effective has been done.

"Our choo-choo trains are at capacity," conference organizer Russell Hancock noted in a passing reference to potential future expansions of transit, now stalled in the discuss-and-debate stage.

Hancock, a Palo Alto resident, is president and CEO of Joint Venture Silicon Valley. He currently teaches in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University, from which he received a Ph.D. in political science. He earlier served as vice president of the Bay Area Council, where he pushed hard for the BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport. He is a recognized concert-level pianist and founder of the Palo Alto-based St. Michael Trio.

The annual conference draws heavily from Joint Venture's primary publication: the Silicon Valley Index (available online at jointventure.org), which compiles research on key "indicators."

Much of this year's gathering focused on "the phenomenon" of Silicon Valley's success in technological innovation, economics and entrepreneurship. It featured a "What's New and Next?" presentation by two leading futurists: Jure Leskovec, chief scientist at Pinterest and computer-science associate professor at Stanford, and Paul Saffo, consulting professor at Stanford and a founder of the Palo Alto-based Institute for the Future.

Hancock led off the morning by summarizing "the phenomenon of Silicon Valley," a "swath of land" defined loosely as the South Bay counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo and Alameda (sometimes including San Francisco) separated by a water chasm of the bay and hemmed in by mountains on the east and west.

"For most part we're already built out. We don't have the option of sprawling," he noted, adding: "Trust me if the bay was land, it would be filled."

Even so, the area has logged seven straight years of job growth, at 3.3 percent per year, above state and national rates. The regional total last year was 107,139 new jobs (47,000 in Santa Clara County, 18,000 in San Francisco, 25,000 in Alameda County and 25,000 for "the rest of the Bay Area").

Unemployment is 2.3 percent. "We've never seen a rate that low," Hancock said. "Economists say that's full employment."

Technology "infuses every sector of economy," and is driving everything from transportation to health care, education, retail, construction and "community infrastructure" jobs. Venture capital supports much of the growth, now including "megadeals" in cancer and other health-related research, including pharmaceuticals.

A megadeal is $100 million-plus, and 23 such deals in Silicon Valley and 16 in San Francisco racked up $5.2 billion in such giant purchase/investments, he said.

There has been a steep drop in smaller startup ventures over the past four years, Hancock noted, with growth currently "being led by a few large companies."

Innovation remains strong, with 19,000 new patents emerging from Silicon Valley, comprising 54 percent of patents statewide and about 15 percent nationally.

Commercial expansion is booming, with about 6 million square feet of completed commercial development last year. That's equivalent to about 160 football fields, Hancock noted, showing a slide. With the Tesla expansion in the Warm Springs area of Fremont that would be about 306 football fields, he said.

And expansion has moved far past the boring tilt-up buildings of past decades into imaginative, space-age buildings. "It sort of feels like Florence during the Renaissance," Hancock said.

But there are two dark shadows looming. They are the area's inability to match its historic job growth with housing and its failure to create effective alternatives to the single-occupant commuter automobile.

Hancock bored in on that topic in a dialogue with two persons engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the challenges: Carol Galante, director of the Turner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, and Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Galante earlier was assistant secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Heminger oversees more than $2 billion a year in funding for "operation, maintenance and expansion" of the region's "surface transportation network."

Neither had an easy answer to Hancock's pointed questions. But their warnings were pointed also.

"Housing is a disaster with seeds of destruction that go back 40 years," Galante said. "We are not building enough housing." Job growth after the 2008 recession "poured gasoline on the fire, but the fire was already building."

Heminger said there are "plenty of villains to go around" in terms of blame for lack of effective transit and transportation alternatives.

Both cited the barriers of environmental requirements and decision-making powers scattered over nine counties, hundreds of cities and a battery of regional, state and federal agencies. They agreed that developing a stronger regional network would be a step forward.

"Some say the system is working today" when jobs move elsewhere, Galante said. "The markets are working if you don't care about the future of Silicon Valley. If we don't solve housing we will be losing Silicon Valley in its innovation and value.

"We're having this out-igration. Amazon isn't coming here."

Firms are "going to places where there is housing affordability and livability for their workers," he said. "I think we are really at risk. ..."

Former Weekly Editor Jay Thorwaldson can be e-mailed at jaythor@well.com.

Related content:

Webcast: State of the Valley

Silicon Valley in 2018: More success, more pressure

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Comments

88 people like this
Posted by A Little Less Hysteria Please
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 23, 2018 at 5:15 am

It's absurd to claim that by not cramming in more people, the Bay Area will shrivel up and die.

Rather, growing firms will just locate some operations elsewhere, as they've actually been doing already for decades. That's not a disaster -- it's healthy. Excessive growth in any one region pushes out people who don't earn top salaries and creates unending traffic gridlock.

Let's say "no" to the technocrats and real estate speculators who demand non-stop growth and "yes" to retaining our existing cities, homes, shops, parks, and way of life.


71 people like this
Posted by Norman Beamer
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 23, 2018 at 7:31 am

There is no housing crisis. The crisis is: "Commercial expansion is booming, with about 6 million square feet of completed commercial development last year." The solution is "'We're having this out-igration. Amazon isn't coming here... Firms are 'going to places where there is housing affordability and livability for their workers.'" Don't destroy quality of life by untrammeled expansion. Let the market seek equilibrium by the aforesaid "out-igration."


67 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2018 at 7:55 am

I am actually quite pleased that Amazon is not coming here and also that Apple is expanding elsewhere.

These large companies are setting up large tech campuses elsewhere has to be a good thing. It will give options to technical workers who can further their careers in areas where they will be able to grow a family and bring support industries to those areas too.

If Silicon Valley had room to grow outwards without mountains or water, we would still have people commuting for a couple of hours if they change jobs or decide to move further afield to be able to buy a home. The geography of the SV make it hard to feasibly build comfortable family homes where the jobs are. The only logical thing is to get more companies to move to Gilroy and Tracy. It won't stop the long commutes, but it may give some a reverse commute which will help to some extent.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Community Center

on Feb 23, 2018 at 9:05 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


33 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2018 at 9:18 am

Joint Venture Silicon Valley is completely off-base on this issue. By JVSV reasoning, every programming and engineering job in the country, nay, the world, needs to move here. Wrong. Network technology frees up businesses to locate in multiple locations around the country and easily work together. Growing local companies should be looking to develop multiple campuses in other locations, not try to bring the entire country into Santa Clara County.

"out-igration"? Yes!

OBTW, Hewlett-Packard figured this out and had it working well back in the 1970's, before the MBAs had their way with the company.


51 people like this
Posted by Hawaiian Bob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2018 at 10:28 am

The crisis is: Faced with having to pay their employees higher wages, big corporations would rather lobby local governments to subsidize more housing. Just say no.


23 people like this
Posted by R. Hoder
a resident of Community Center
on Feb 23, 2018 at 11:02 am

[Portion removed.]

I encourage you to learn more about this issue by reaching out to someone who disagrees with you and asking them why they feel the consequences are so problematic. You can’t honestly believe that the persistent pleas to address this problem are simply from “technocrats” or “developers” looking to make money and ruin your lives.

I know what it’s like to live somewhere and have everything change. I once lived in a city that failed to make the adjustments necessary for the future that was coming and the result was an economic crisis. That seems far fetched to many of you, but is it not already your reality that your children and grand children cannot afford to live in or near the communities you live in? Is that not a crisis for you? Does it seem sustainable that our schools can’t recruit young people to join the ranks of the teaching community in our city because they are not willing to commute 1.5+ hours each way to pursue that opportunity?

[Portion removed.] Maybe it's time you ask your children and grandchildren if your efforts [portion removed] have now become the greatest challenge to their life goals of finding a home in the bay area.

[Portion removed.]


11 people like this
Posted by bill
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 23, 2018 at 11:05 am

This Silicon Valley lament stuff needs to stop. All of this was entirely predictable 30-50 years ago, as there always was limited land, bounded by an Ocean, mountains, and a bay. There are solutions, but those that are traditional solutions, including those from traditional think tanks and chambers (Joint Venture/Milken/Brookings/Hoover) wont work. I see things quite optimistically. The commercial growth will keep growing (the network and ecosystem variety effects of the Bay Area are unmatched, and even more unmatched more than ever), but people just need to get over their need for buying homes with yards. Vertical building is part of the solution. A different mix of labor is a another solution.

And, by the way, to a commenter above, Amazon not coming here? Really? They are, big time--not the HQ2, but more importantly, Amazon's most important R&D, cloud and hardware, is being done in the Bay Area, now, more than ever. And all of this is ALL GOOD.

Get an apartment/condo, and get out of the house (mentality). Quit the lament, at once, y'all. It's baseless and pointless. The Bay Area, and Silicon Valley, proper, are the best places on the planet to make a life, a career, and change the world, bar none.


44 people like this
Posted by Anne
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 23, 2018 at 11:59 am

No thanks to Joint Venture Silicon Valley's desire for untrammeled growth.


27 people like this
Posted by To Hoder
a resident of Mayfield
on Feb 23, 2018 at 1:17 pm

I believe you are on the wrong side on this one.

The number of babies born to families in Palo Alto And the Bay Area as a whole is small enough to result in population stability.

The population growth is due to movement here. Once our weather, culture, arts, creativity, liberalism, lifestyle, neighborhood quality, Stanford etc. brought and kept people here.

Now, people come for jobs or money. A huge portion of commercial and residential real estate is now bought by investors who do not live in Palo Alto.

And people build for money, and lobby for laws that accelerate building for money.

Do you accept that the big demand for housing here is driven by jobs and money?

If so, why not consider the value of leveraging what’s been learned here to build other job creating ecosystems elsewhere?

At some point in a city’s growth increasing population is good. And certain rates of growth can allow adjustments that accommodate that growth. We have exceeded the critical mass of population that we can handle here. More people decrease, rather than increase our productivity and increase, rather than decrease cost of goods, cost of building, per capital contributions to local government. It makes education harder rather than easier.

And I see your claim as being that people who want to come here for money have a stronger claim than those who want to be here for quality of life.

Money can be made anywhere.

I do not see the strong magnetism of money as being a crises.


28 people like this
Posted by SB827
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 23, 2018 at 8:09 pm

"Let's say "no" to the technocrats and real estate speculators who demand non-stop growth and "yes" to retaining our existing cities, homes, shops, parks, and way of life."

It's not going to be retained. It's gone, and it's not going to come back. Do you think that if you keep everything low density that traditional families of four are going to move into those 2 million dollar single-family homes? No, they're going to be bought up by landlords and treated like apartments, with every nook and cranny filled with housemates, because no one is going to be able to afford to live in them otherwise. You're making it impossible for anyone to afford even a simple studio without having a working SO to split the rent with. You're sacrificing the opportunity for the generations after yours to have a middle class existence just so you can pretend you're still living in a quiet suburb. This is why SB827 is so desperately needed.


19 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 23, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Geographic diversity is healthy. Disperse quantity of life to preserve quality of life.


11 people like this
Posted by Observer
a resident of University South
on Feb 24, 2018 at 10:03 am

Kudos to the Weekly for recognizing that the housing crisis is real! If you talk to young families in the parks, you know that the topic of housing costs is going to come up pretty soon. For people who recently bought, it’s how crazy the prices are. For people who havent bought, it’s about where they are going to move. And it shouldn’t be a coincidence that we’ve lost hundreds of kids from our school system, with no bottom in sight. Palo Alto just isn’t family-friendly anymore.


3 people like this
Posted by george drysdale
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 24, 2018 at 10:19 am

Bull. The "experts" aren't in the business of producing housing. There is plenty of land available for developing housing. The mobile home parks of Silicon Valley are large tracts of usable land for apartment houses. Even more land is available in all the knock down apartment houses which can be greatly improved and more elevated. If Silicon Valley wants to become Manhattan there it goes: underground transportation. The number one enemy rent control. The San Jose property rights initiative.
George Drysdale land economist and all around nice guy


40 people like this
Posted by Sense
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2018 at 12:54 pm

The idea that the only way forward is to densify and continue to treat corporate growth in a laissez faire manner while making all the negative consequences a public problem is highly flawed and just plain wrong. The premise above is that if we do not allow the concentration of corporations to grow unchecked and provide housing for them, that Silicon Valley will die, which is simply preposterous. The current prosperity grew from an area that had apricot orchards, this exact infrastructure, a concern about the natural environment, and far less density and pollution.

There is no "housing crisis" here, except for people whose whole lives are being uprooted because of rising costs and companies all wanting to be here. The choice is between 1) an ultra-dense future in which we cede the area to corporate interests who think only of their desire to be here and their need for short-term housing and ask the public to pay for this transformation and will leave a mess for the public when the business cycle turns down, and 2) deciding things like a reasonable quality of life, good transportation (including car) circulation is important relative to commerce and people's time, and a good natural environment are worth having in civic life.

The argument that we must densify or all innovation is lost is simply not supported by facts when the innovation that created this area came about in the less dense, nice place we had up to ten years ago. This area has been crazy expensive for many decades -- in some ways, it was worse in the '80s because tech salaries were lower relative to today, interest rates were way higher, and affordability of homes was thus actually worse for the ordinary person (because cash flow is the fundamental issue). Nevertheless, tech startups thrived until, yep, a few years ago, when this area became just so congested, densified, and quality of life started to plummet.

The world is getting more populated, and Silicon Valley is desirable. It's time to think about how to create Silicon Valley 2.0 - oh wait, that's SF which used to be all lawyers - okay, Silicon Valley 3.0. Hong Kong's only choice was to grow by densifying, but they are a small island and the living example of how you can't solve affordability in a business center by building more or more densely or even through the greatest transportation system in the world, and you can't ever achieve having everyone living right next to their work. People are not corral, they move around, and making our area more difficult to move around only makes it a less nice place to live and hurts productivity, it does not improve walkability. Silicon Valley companies can solve this problem by deciding to get together and found the optimal company towns they desire in places where those towns make sense. Create additional centers of innovation rather than ruining the existing one.

Facebook pulled up stakes and moved where they had space to grow through much gnashing of teeth about how it would tank Palo Alto innovation. It didn't. Palo Alto has Stanford nearby, and there is a critical mass of innovation here. We do not have to hog all the jobs and companies. (And Stanford cannot move as easily as these companies can.)

There is no housing crisis, there is an everyone-in-the-pool problem, when the pool was never built to handle that many people. Luckily, we can build a few more nice pools, and would really benefit the entire nation if we did. Companies can solve this problem by realizing that this is a vast state, and a vast nation, with many areas in dire need of job creators. This is also an incredibly beautiful nation, where a few companies with a pioneering spirit could found a few new, highly desirable places, to share in the bounty. It would ultimately benefit our entire nation, and at the same time, make it possible to have a future in which Silicon Valley is a nice place to live, too.


32 people like this
Posted by Sense
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2018 at 1:08 pm

@Observer,
"And it shouldn’t be a coincidence that we’ve lost hundreds of kids from our school system, with no bottom in sight. Palo Alto just isn’t family-friendly anymore."

If you have been watching, Palo Alto Schools were crowded and real estate never really dropped much during the last down-turn because areas with great schools attract people. PAUSD has had a serious problem with it's management and depression/suicide, and an unwillingness to deal with the problems in an honest and lasting way (as opposed to expensive window dressing). When the school district calls a meeting to have a conversation with parents after more suicides and it is once again a one-way lecture with untrustworthy managers doing all the talking, it's not exactly an enticement for families who have choices about where and how to school their kids. When the district pre-emptively sues families of special needs children so often that the state has to tell them to stop and try to work with people, you have inklings of the hostile environment that has made so many people I know give up and go elsewhere.

In addition, Palo Alto is becoming less family-friendly because of the gross traffic, citification for corporate selfish interests (when most people were willing to sacrifice for the suburbs), fewer resources kids can walk to especially on the south side of town even as the ones in the north have become all but inaccessible, and because of a school district management that has become detached from any idea of service and collaboration. Focusing on densifying Palo Alto for a few companies' selfish interests, keeping the focus on City Council and resources on those companies' needs rather than existing residents', will only make this worse and is the opposite of "family friendly".


14 people like this
Posted by JCP
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:25 am

JCP is a registered user.

Why did we elect Fine, Tanaka, Kniss, and Scharff? They have done nothing for affordable housing, which is the issue, not more housing. Maybe when there is a two-story ADU in Old Palo Alto next to Kniss or Scharff, opinions may change. And Scharff has said that "there is no solution for traffic" so what is the discussion about? How many people and cars can we cram into a small space? That's urban planning?


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:49 am

Posted by Observer, a resident of University South

>> And it shouldn’t be a coincidence that we’ve lost hundreds of kids from our school system, with no bottom in sight.

From a high of 15,575 in 1967 (height of the baby boom wave), to a low of 7452 in 1989, enrollment has somewhat stabilized to ~12,000 +- depending on the economy. In fairness to the district, the nature of the economy here has made enrollment difficult to predict precisely. Maybe we should be looking at PAUSD enrollment as a leading (tech) indicator.


29 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 26, 2018 at 11:03 am

Annette is a registered user.

The real crisis is how we vote. Our local “leaders” and their “just say yes” approach to unmitigated commercial development led us straight into this quagmire. And now a state senator introduces SB827, the perfect tool for making matters worse. I think all these people need a geography lesson.


16 people like this
Posted by Decker Walker
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 26, 2018 at 12:46 pm

Single-minded focus on economic growth as measured by increasing jobs and increasing tax revenue is destroying quality of life in the Bay Area - high cost of housing is one factor, and so is traffic congestion, but so also are air quality (notice how spare the air days are more frequent?), wildlife habitat (notice how coyotes and mountain lions are showing up in backyards?), and happiness (notice how muc road rage, suicide, rudeness, stress?). Either we limit population or we figure out how to live well in higher density. Just extending San Francisco and San Jose all along the Bay is a recipe for an expensive, unlivable slum.


21 people like this
Posted by We need to elect anti-growth candidates
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 26, 2018 at 7:36 pm

We need antigrowth people to run for local elections and then be brave enough to stand up to the "growther" mentality of state officials supported by money grubbing developers and silicon valley CEOs. There is no "housing crisis" it is a made up phenomena to distract from overpopulation brought on by the growthers and their insatiable need to build their companies here. Smart planning looks at the environment and figures out how many people it can hold without destroying the area. Looking at transportation, schools, parks, housing and jobs. We have had no smart planning for decades just greed running the show.

Antigrowth people, it isn't fun but, please run for local city council this fall and teach growthers the meaning of the word no! Right now the people controlling local city councils and planning commissions are all growthers and they move on to the county and state level where they cause even more trouble.


Like this comment
Posted by @anti-growther
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 26, 2018 at 9:31 pm

There are more of us who are suffering under the housing crisis than there are of you retired anti-growthers who value pseudo-suburbia over making sure the next generation can have a place to live. On the state level we're already enacting change so you can't stop new housing from getting built, so it doesn't really matter how much you guys howl and try to elect NIMBYs to local councils.


All you're doing is pushing people into financial hardship for short-term gain and delaying the inevitable. Do you actually think that in 30 years when the majority of the boomer generation is gone that we're going to elect to keep job centers like Palo Alto low density and keep our rents high for no reason? No, I value plentiful housing so people can have affordable places to live, not permanent suburbia at the expense of everyone else.


13 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:21 pm

The Silicon Valley business model explained in 15 seconds:

1. Eliminate as many jobs as possible by developing & marketing automation.
2. Export any jobs that can't be easily automated to low-wage nations.
3. Import workers from low-wage nations to suppress wages for all of the jobs that can't be easily exported.

Pretend it is all about inclusion and diversity. If anyone challenges the model, call them a "raciss" or a NIMBY.


Like this comment
Posted by @Ahem
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:26 pm

Uh huh, I'm sure that's the reason you don't want any new housing being built.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2018 at 11:12 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Quit patting yourselves on the back when you need a kick in the crotch. I knew these problems would come up 40 years ago when I work ata large, silicon valley firm. When Atherton and Menlo Park rich people threw their weight around to make it impossible to complete the designed loop of BART.
Combine that with housing prices that were unforgivable on a senior tech's salary, so I jumped at the first chance that would get me out of silicon valley.

Now, I can laugh my u know what at the situation everyone is responsible for the mess YOU created. If BART had been allowed to finis the loop , there would be no caltrain or grade separation problems!

The deadliest problem IS businesses leaving silicon valley! Google is building a Boulder, CO campus, they already having people telecommuting from Denver ( a fellow employee in AI is going that right now. HP has a much bigger campus in Loveland, CO than thy ever had in silicon valley; I was asked to be an Engineer in their Test and Measurement campus.

The other issue: when you sold off that obsolete 2,3 and 4" wafer equipment at bargain prices, CHINA now is using that " obsolete " equipment in their own silicon valley. When I need some ICs or LED based light bulbs, CHINA is where many of the new SMT devices are made. Even our supply houses have to get their stocking items from China (often with a 10X markup ). Your " success " is being duplicated halfway around the world. Now all the " successes " are not unique. Listening to developers and moneymen has taken the very soul of what made the Santa Clara valley unique and a place that you were able to raise a family in. My commute was 15 minutes at the most. Now I see it takes 30+ minutes now.

My only advice : If you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING! Or silicon valley will look like San Francisco looks now. ( shudder )


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2018 at 11:42 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 27, 2018 at 5:51 pm

Here we have another sign of Silicon Valley's senescence. Instead of discussing capital availability, market growth, etc., its leaders are obsessing over housekeeping items.

Don't worry. Housing demand will steadily diminish as the Valley phenomenon fades.


Like this comment
Posted by @Curmudgeon
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 27, 2018 at 6:54 pm

Just like that one time in 2000, when the Bay Area never again became a highly sought after job center.


6 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 27, 2018 at 9:03 pm

"Just like that one time in 2000, when the Bay Area never again became a highly sought after job center."

Uh-huh. Everybody knew the dot-com boom would go on forever. Until, suddenly, it didn't. This time we're getting telegrams.


4 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 27, 2018 at 9:45 pm

[Post removed.]


4 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 28, 2018 at 5:27 am

"All you're doing is pushing people into financial hardship for short-term gain and delaying the inevitable."

The entire purpose of life is to delay the inevitable.


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 28, 2018 at 8:47 am

Posted by the_punnisher, a resident of Mountain View

>> The deadliest problem IS businesses leaving silicon valley! Google is building a Boulder, CO campus, they already having people telecommuting from Denver ( a fellow employee in AI is going that right now. HP has a much bigger campus in Loveland, CO ...

This is exactly the way it should be. Why do you object? HP actually showed how to do this decades ago.

>> The other issue: when you sold off that obsolete 2,3 and 4" wafer equipment at bargain prices, CHINA now is using that " obsolete " equipment in their own silicon valley. When I need some ICs or LED based light bulbs, CHINA is where many of the new SMT devices are made.

Yes, how can enough blue collar jobs be created in the US? I don't think this will be easily solved. Maybe never.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of South of Midtown
on Feb 28, 2018 at 10:18 pm

What's stopping us building out to the sea?
Environmental and aesthetics aside, what is keeping this back now?
Clearly the environment mentality is waning
So much for zero waste, reduce reuse recycle, remodel, conserve water, and have small families
That was the past

The norm around town is tear it down, pump out nonsaline groundwater to build a bottom layer to house a pool or staff of distant relatives.
The heck with the environment
We've become a buy and throw away society
And have opened our country two billions of wannabes


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

Camper opens for lunch in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 12 comments | 3,897 views

Local Flavor - Holiday Hotspots
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 2,288 views

Gobbledygook goings on in Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 1 comment | 1,377 views

Couples: Child Loss, "No U-Turn at Mercy Street"
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 897 views