Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 26, 2010

Who’s Alameda?

In addition to the gem of a statement made by Edward Hirshberg at the last Alameda Democratic Club meeting, he said a lot of other things about how great business is and it is in fact business, and not schools, the create a wealthy community.   He goes on to say that if the cost of office space etc… keeps rising because of parcel taxes like this then businesses will simply choose to take their off shore their businesses because everything can be done over the internet these days.   He gives a few examples like a newspaper in Southern California sending their reporting to India or Indians designing wood frame houses in the snow even though they have never seen wood frame houses or snow.   Because I guess it doesn’t snow in India.

All I could think was,  I’m sure that the dude in India could design an awesome wood frame house, but personally, I would rather have some dude with actual experience in that particular environment to design my wood frame snow house for me.   But whatever.

My big takeaway from all this was that I really should send Mr. Hirshberg a copy of Richard Florida’s Who’s Your City.   Or maybe he could read a copy of the Bay Area Council’s report on Recession and Recovery: An Economic Reset.  The Bay Area Council, for those who do not know, is not some teacher lobbyist group, but rather a public policy group.    In this report, there is a lot of discussion about the talent that can be found in the Bay Area and it’s important to continue to develop this talent — in the form of educating our children — in order to compete in the 21st century economy.   It is not enough to simply keep prices for business parcels low so some business will think, hey yeah, I was going to send my business to Thailand because of the ultra low rates for an office building, but I think I’ll just set up shop in Alameda now!

It’s not the commercial spaces that are going to bring businesses to the Bay Area and hopefully Alameda, but the people.   And because policy experts have surmised that California’s population growth is no longer coming from people moving to California it is even more important that we invest in educating the little folks who will be the talent to drive future business.

From the Bay Area Council report:

A key pillar of competitiveness is the quality of public education, from K-12 through university. High quality education attracts and retains talent as people seek the best for their children and themselves, providing a reservoir of people trained and skilled to fill the knowledge jobs on which the Bay Area relies for growth. Recent budget cuts have disproportionately affected education. The impact of these cuts may continue for decades in the form of trained workforce shortages. This may be exacerbated by out-migration by those dissatisfied with the local educational opportunities for their children. Failure to generate an environment that attracts highly skilled workers hurts the region’s competitiveness and taken to its logical conclusion can lead to an erosion of its capacity to innovate. This is a major concern since we operate in a global economy where workforce quality and talent are key determinants of business location.

And

Education in the Bay Area is under pressure. Statewide, public schools are lagging by most measures. In the Bay Area, performance at the county level is highly variable…

Student proficiency, student-teacher ratios, funding levels, and other indicators do not paint the state in positive light. By extension, this colors decisions to move to and remain in the state by the very knowledge workers that comprise the talent base. To remain competitive, these trends must be reversed at all levels of education…

Essentially this says, stop investing in education and the people who will create, drive, run, and staff businesses will look elsewhere to create, drive, run, and staff business because their kids are important to them.   It won’t be because a commercial property owner like Mr. Hirshberg has to charge a little extra to his tenants because he will pass on the cost of any parcel tax to his tenants.   It will be because Vermont or Massachusetts or any other of the many other states ranked above California will have put a priority in investing in the education of its children.

Advertisement

18 Comments »

  1. It’s a particularly disingenuous commment from Mr. Hirshberg because he’s a commercial property owner, which obviously can’t be done over the internet.

    Comment by Matt Parker — May 26, 2010 @ 7:33 am

  2. Is the full tape available? I couldn’t find it on the Alameda Currents website.

    Comment by Oh the irony! — May 26, 2010 @ 10:06 am

  3. But now I know the answer to the question asked about whether Mr. Hirschberg is playing “dumb” or is actually dumb.

    He is “moving his business to India” if the parcel tax passes?

    Apparently businesses do not need educated employees, right?

    And people don’t move to a city because of its schools, but because of busineses like the one he runs?

    Oh and maybe we can use the internet to have our kids educated by Indians.

    Unfortunately, what he IS succeeding in doing is framing the debate by suggesting ALL businesses are against the parcel tax.

    He should be painted as an out-of-town, carpet bagging, short-sighted, money-grubbing, kid-hating wing nut with no interest in the long term welfare of Alameda. Even Scrooge McDuck took care of his nephews…

    Comment by Hot R — May 26, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

  4. Mr. Hirshberg’s business is owning a medical office building and an office building that includes the office of Alameda’s own city treasurer, Kevin Kennedy.

    If Measure E passes, I suspect that the likelihood that Mr. Hirshberg will pick up his buildings and the ground beneath them and move them to India is fairly low.

    I suspect that the likelihood that Mr. Kennedy (a Measure E endorser) would move his accounting business to India is perhaps even lower than the likelihood that Mr. Hirshberg would move his buildings to India.

    BTW: If Measure E passes, Mr. Hirshberg’s school parcel tax payments will decrease by almost 25%.

    Comment by Oh the irony! — May 26, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  5. My investment advisory business is in the Times Star Building owned by Ed, as is our Mayor’s legal practice and our City Auditor’s accounting practice. As the saying goes, location-location-location. Makes for an easy commute to the Hall.

    And yes, I probably wouldn’t move to India if Measure E passes, although if Measure E doesn’t pass I’d contemplate it.

    Comment by Kevin Kennedy — May 26, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

  6. and does Mr. Hirschberg enjoy the windfall from prop 13 ( the basic cause of most of California schools financial problems) and pay less in property taxes to begin with? How greedy can he get?

    Comment by barbara kahn — May 27, 2010 @ 7:05 am

  7. Businesses don’t CREATE wealth. They ATTRACT wealth. Sadly the adorable boutiques of Alameda aren’t attracting sufficient wealth. The cost-per-operation is high compared to the income, We don’t have enough core, practical businesses – tech, manufacturing, corporate headquarters, etc. We’re one big service industry, with the drawbridge up to keep out anyone actually looking for the services, because many Alamedans are afraid of … traffic! Strangers! Change? OhdearGodNOOOOOO!!!! In 1999 we were told Alameda was the new “Silicon Island”. Those high-tech dreams have fallen flat. Alameda needs to attract businesses with a serious financial base – and if our schools suck, our fire department is understaffed, our housing choices are limited and overpriced, and the commute is a nightmare – NOBODY WILL COME. Combined live/work is a great solution – IF we can come up with fiscally- and environmentally-sound structure, with a reliable developer. I know this seems off-topic, but it’s a systemic issue – our city needs more income, more funding for infrastructure, better schools (even though most are already great). We are physically an Island, but to paraphrase John Donne: “no man is an island, entire of itself”. The death of one small business can lead to the deaths of others; the death of a large semi-local enterprise like NUMMI will indeed have repercussions in Alameda.

    ooh, thunderstorm! This is the e-gods telling me to shut up and shut down.

    Comment by Alana Dill — May 27, 2010 @ 10:19 am

  8. Kevin,

    Sorry I described your business incorrectly! After Mr. Hirshberg moves his tenants’ businesses to India along with his building, we can have a regular New Alameda on the plains of the Punjab — what with you and Bev and the other Kevin there.

    And yes Barbara, Mr. Hirshberg has been the beneificiary of Prop 13 welfare. That medical builing he owns? The portion of the property taxes he pays based on the Prop 13 value of the property is less than half of what I pay on my house — even though his property is twice the size of mine. And I’m not even all that new to Alameda, so my tax burden is probably lower than others who bought property here during the peak of the boom years.

    Comment by Oh the irony! — May 27, 2010 @ 10:44 am

  9. 7.
    “Businesses don’t CREATE wealth. They ATTRACT wealth.”

    I think you are separating storefront businesses, which are the last links in the business chain, from all the other businesses which exist to bring wealth to a community. All the links in the business chain of wealth are interdependent as are the people who are employed in each link. When the first businesses in the economic chain are broken, people lose jobs, storefront businesses close or don’t expand, (i.e.. Neldam’s Bakery) and wealth withers. The withering of wealth affects all city services (schools, fire etc.) which are wealth consumers, not creators.

    It’s not surprising raising the taxes on the creators of wealth in order to pay the consumers of wealth in this economic climate is a difficult sell.

    Comment by Jayare — May 27, 2010 @ 11:11 am

  10. 8.
    So you’re on prop 13 welfare too, how ironic.

    Comment by Jayare — May 27, 2010 @ 11:16 am

  11. 10 — Probably a little compared to people who bought at the peak. I suspect, however, that most property owners in Alameda have been around for longer than I, so if we average it out, I’m guessing that I’m carrying a higher burden than most. If the policy is changed so that everyone pays the same and I personally end up paying more, I can live with that.

    Comment by Oh the irony! — May 27, 2010 @ 11:27 am

  12. Bankk of America, everywhere, pays prop 13 taxes, because title never changes on corporately owned buildings. While we have to do what we can to apply band aids to our schools, we have to be looking at some changes in 13 (which like measure A is strangling socially significant efforts). There may be some action on the 2012 ballot. stay tuned.

    Comment by barbara kahn — May 27, 2010 @ 11:41 am

  13. 9

    Those “consumers” of wealth are also significant producers of it. In Alameda they produce a helluva lot more than the “business’ interests do.

    Comment by dave — May 27, 2010 @ 11:55 am

  14. 13
    Only in the secondary sense. They (may) facilitate in the creation of wealth, say by teaching certain skills creators of wealth may utilize in producing wealth or put out fires that may otherwise burn a business facility down, or provide medical care to a worker or facilitator.

    The quid pro quo from production of wealth.

    Than there are the leaches who do nothing but take their prop 13 welfare and live the good life on others’ backs.

    Comment by jayare — May 27, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

  15. It seems to me that wealth isn’t going to be created at all unless we give potential wealth creators a decent education. Sometimes wealth creation requires long term investment. That’s what Measure E is — a long term investment that will lead to wealth creation.

    Comment by Oh the irony! — May 27, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

  16. 15
    There you go with your irony again.

    Education, especially public
    education puts little round minds into little round holes and punishes those little minds if they try to put their little unshaped minds into anything but round holes.

    That might make good worker bees but it stifles creativity. And that’s what society wants, uncle takes care of everything else.

    Comment by Jayare — May 27, 2010 @ 3:32 pm

  17. 13., 14. the Alameda high school kids are a huge creator of wealth for food concessions on Park Street. I now understand that No on E is actually a PSBA conspiracy to force consolidation so Park Street can reap all that lunch hour booty. It’s a lose/lose proposition for WABA and those store owners with “Vote NO” signs.

    Comment by M.I. — May 27, 2010 @ 6:33 pm

  18. #16, So what shall we do? Bring our local school district to its knees so students get an even worse education?

    Or build on what’s already good by investing in the district and then supporting the course of reform laid out in the Master Plan?

    Comment by Higgledy Piggledy — May 27, 2010 @ 6:41 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 224 other followers