|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 11:00 AM
Council OKs funds for affordable housing projects
|
|
by Daniel DeBolt
Mountain View Voice Staff
The largest addition to the city's affordable housing stock in recent memory got its start on Tuesday after City Council members set aside $10 million in funding for three projects.
Council members voted 6-1 in support of funding the three projects totaling 85 units on Chiquita Avenue, El Camino Real and Rengstorff Avenue, despite worries from neighbors about parking, traffic and the perception that their property values would go down as a result.
"I'm a neighborhood preservationist, I do care about you and your neighborhood," Mayor Jac Siegel said to neighbors. "That said, you need to look at facts and not anecdotal data."
The council will vote on the projects' designs later.
Proposals included a Habitat for Humanity proposal for eight ownership homes for "very low- and low-income families" at 300 Chiquita Ave., where several households would have to be evicted to make way. The council allocated $2.8 million for it.
At 1581-1585 El Camino Real, First Community Housing proposes 25 apartments for developmentally disabled individuals with "low and extremely low incomes," replacing an apartment building and a commercial building. The city's price tag for it was $2.13 million.
The largest project would put 52 efficiency studios for "extremely low-income" people above 2,700 square feet of new retail at the corner of Rengstorff Avenue and Old Middlefield Way, replacing the 1948 building where the well-known La Costena eatery is located, and an adjacent duplex. The developer is ROEM Apartment Communities and Eden Housing.
Council member Inks was opposed to the final deal, which allocated only a third of the $8.67 million in recommended funding to the ROEM/Eden proposal until its design is found to be satisfactory.
If the design of the three projects are approved, the projects would receive most of the below market rate funds the city has received in recent years from fees on new housing projects.
"We have all this money and it is so difficult to spend it," said council member John Inks, who opposes the practice of charging developers for affordable housing.
The city had requested proposals from affordable housing developers, who ended up not having to compete for the funding because only three viable proposals were made. The three proposals were set to use $15 million of the $18.8 million available.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by DCS, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 2:42 pm FACT - BMR on evelyn/franklin has lowered property values.
|
|
Posted by OMV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 3:25 pm @DCS - We've seen your posts before on threads related to affordable housing in Mountain View. What factual evidence do you have to support your claim? As I recall, it's the typical "a couple of buyers who came by my unit and heard about the BMR development, walked away and didn't make an offer" claim. Well, if that's not anecdotal (as opposed to factual) evidence, I don't know what is.
|
|
Posted by gcoladon, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 3:45 pm
gcoladon is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online @DCS, why don't you pull up the zillow property value graph for one or more of the properties in question, and see if there's an appreciable change in the valuation curve after BMR housing was built. And then share the links to Zillow with us, so we can see the evidence.
BTW you should also share the links even if they don't support your hypothesis, in the spirit of integrity.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 4:00 pm We've all heard the term 'NIMBY', hurled as an insulting label against anyone opposing any socially correct but undesirable project. Ponder one thing: Those responsible for these attrocities are the first ones whispering 'NIMBY' when they place them somewhere other than their own neighborhoods. Or maybe they're immune, living in nice neighborhoods, destined to remain blightless forever. If no one wants it nearby, might be just a bad idea.
|
|
Posted by OMV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm @Steve - Interesting that you bring up an objection to the use of the term NIMBY as an 'insulting label' when no one before you used this term, either in the article or the comment thread.
Also interesting that you object to people tossing around one term (NIMBY) as an 'insulting label', then in the same posting refer to affordable housing developments as 'attrocities' [sic]. I'm sure the developmentally disabled individuals who hopefully will find new homes in the proposed First Community Housing development love the fact that you're calling their future home an 'atrocitiy.'
Perhaps you should attend one of the civility roundtables that the City has been holding and something might rub off...
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm As a victim of previous city-sponsored programs, I feel comfortable calling them attrocities. I have personally been called a 'NIMBY'. The term may be out of date, but the concept remains. I fully support efforts to help disabled persons whatever their situation. That project is only one of the three approved. Time will tell how it impacts the surrounding neighborhood. As for subsidized housing in general, ask the citizens whose neighborhoods have been so graced how their quality of life has fared. If a project has to be dumped on someone, maybe it isn't such a great thing.
|
|
Posted by DCS, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 5:24 pm Actual offers were rescinded after disclosure of BMR housing and the selling price lowered as a direct result of that.
|
|
Posted by All You Can Eat, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2011 at 10:34 am In a tried and true phrase... "There goes the neighborhood."
|
|
Posted by downtown neighbor, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 22, 2011 at 9:31 am The city council says residents making less than 60% of the median income, which is about 20% of us, 'need' government run housing. The money to eventually take over this fifth of our housing stock is collected by making all housing more expensive - that's right, the city makes housing more expensive so they can 'claim' they are making it cheaper!
Housing is expensive because supply is not meeting demand. Naturally developers would want to build more housing to make money by meeting demand, BUT the city says NO - they say: if you want to build housing you need to give us lots of money in housing development taxes. A few developers pay the tax, but most build office or commercial space instead.
So today, even though there are vacant office buildings everywhere, developers build more offices, while the city council hands over tens (soon hundreds) of millions of dollars to their 'cozy' out-of-town developer.
The system is messed up. Some of us have spoken up, but more need to.
|
|
Posted by Will S, a resident of another community, on Nov 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm Is the Old Middlefield/Rengstorff project going to displace Taqueria La Bamba as well as La Costena?
|
|
Posted by Rick, a resident of another community, on Nov 27, 2011 at 3:40 pm My fantasy is to someday build BMR housing for "extremely low income" people right next door to all the city council members who advocate for BMR housing and their supporters.
I own a $2m house that's next door to a white trash, BMR family. Won't make that mistake again.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
