NIMBY against Teacher Housing in Almaden

There were many other concerns raised that are not being reported… neighborhood character was just one among them. media reports what people love to read…

I guess @hvr’s point was media highlights a few people’s complaint instead of majority’s main concern “why demolishing existing schools instead of building teacher’s housing in the new site?”. I don’t see any proper reasoning behind it. It is so easy to blame others with NIMBYism without knowing what is their main concern. After all, it doesn’t affect the blamer at all.

For many people, proposition#5 is NYMBYISM. So is proposition#10.
Should we get blamed by supporting it?

1 Like

My guess on the land is there’s a by-law, law, ordinance, etc that says the school district can only acquire land if it’s used to build schools. That’s why they have to use the existing land for housing and buy new land to build schools. Admitting that’s would start another debate in if they have the right to build housing. They probably don’t.

2 Likes

First of all, we or I have mostly used NIMBYism for the most part focusing on RE and housing. To expand that to refer to voting is beyond the scope intended. Of course we vote according to our own preferences and values. I guess wanting to eat chicken wings tonight is NIMBYism, since I am supporting it when others are not…

Secondly, this is a real estate forum focused on owners, no? Well, if you know what is good for you (which apparently you don’t) then go and vote No for Prop 5. Frankly, I could care less what you people do. You don’t want the flexibility of being able to transfer your property tax basis to anywhere as opposed to only once and maybe some counties? Ok, sure… Yeah, vote Yes on Prop 10 too while you are at.

I am locked out of the SJ Mercury site to do some investigating but I did see another article referencing the fact that some of these schools are old. Well, if true, would that be ok to rebuild and then place teachers where they are needed in preparation for the future?

Again, when people specifically say “the complex is going to change the neighborhood character” and frankly it won’t , that is NIMBYism, plain and simple.

This makes sense.
It never occurred to me.
You are the first person who gives me possible reasoning behind it. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

When I said NIMBYism, I meant “Any agenda for the interest of small group at the expense of the benefit of majority”. Prop#5 and Prop#10 are qualified for this criterion. Your chicken wing story are not.

That’s better described as “special interests”. :smile:

1 Like

I agree. Will leave the posting as it is not to confuse others. :slightly_smiling_face:

But again, the majority here in this space are owners, no? It is not an agenda for the interest of a small group when we are mostly the group. So, @Jane, tell me, how are you voting for 5 and 10?

But you are right they are of the same origin. Just people voting narrowly for their own interests, other people be damned.

The same proposal essentially was done of course before San Jose in the Sunset. Do you see me crying about it? I embrace it!!! I want teachers to be able to afford to live and work nearby to teach YOUR rug rats. A complex full of teachers… Wow, crazy frat parties every night. OMG, the sky is falling…

The fact is, you guys are a bunch of hypocrites. Yeah, you want great FREE schools with excellent teachers but the fact is, teachers can’t afford to live here. Ok, tell me, would you prefer that INFERIOR teachers only teach in your pristine schools because well the good ones are smart enough to go elsewhere or do another profession? I bet you would change your tune when that happens and your school ratings start falling…

At first I thought it’s purely a case of nimbyism. But after I read some critiques of the school board’s plan the opposition has some valid points.

Why tear down a well functioning school and build new schools on the new site? Why not build teacher housing on the new site? You have fewer structures to tear down and build which should be cheaper and faster.

The parent who was quoted as saying he doesn’t want cheaper housing in his neighborhood is a nimby. But that doesn’t mean the other parents who have doubts about the plan are NIMBYs too.

1 Like

Since you’re so kay poh, find out the reasons :slight_smile: We need facts not opinions to pass our judgement.

The lack of good teachers is a serious matter. If it takes bold moves like this, well, so be it. Would you prefer to have to go and spend on private schooling or would you rather have a complex of teachers nearby? Teachers nearby means less stress for them and hopefully more time to spend on Junior and Jane. Would you prefer teachers half-asleep in the classrooms or not having time after class to stay and give extra tutoring when well they have to drive home 2 hours away?

I applaud San Jose for trying to really address the issue, which sounds like it is a real problem.

Hmm, I don’t see the author of this piece defining NIMBYism wrongly…

Falk, 56, announced his resignation from the post at a city council meeting this week, citing the city’s overarching NIMBY attitude. NIMBY stands for “Not In My Backyard” and is used to describe those who frequently oppose new developments.

Hmmm, the truth comes out???

1 Like

All right.
We are all hypocritical NIMBY.

1 Like

@Jane, I suppose if I lived next door to the proposed tear-down I would be upset too… But to be fair, the teacher crisis is true. Drastic measures may be needed to keep the best teachers around for our future generations.

The housing crisis was caused by nymbies. The unintended consequences will effect everything. Including their kids … who will be moving back home because they have nowhere to live.

Trust me, I do care about teachers.
I got property tax bill yesterday (I bought my primary in 2014 and rental this year, hence, you can imagine how high my tax bills are) including bond measures to subsidize teacher’s housing cost.
I donate to schools (at least 4x more than they suggest) to cover the salary for music/art/PE teachers.

I was never against teacher housing subsidize, building etc.
However, I do question it if location/funding is not properly planned.
Questioning the plan and trying to reach the better solution is not equivalent to “objecting the idea itself”.
School district must not use NIMBYism card to push through their plan.
For example, if SJSD tried to explain the reason why they want to demolish existing 2 schools and build teacher’s housing there instead of building teacher’s housing in vacant space and convince parents, the whole process could have been much smoother.
We (SJ home owners through Measure-V if passes) are the ones who are going to fund this plan (not San Franciscans), why can’t we ask our concerns and get the proper answer from them?

1 Like