Town Square

Post a New Topic

City needs more housing, says 'balanced' growth campaign leader

Original post made on Mar 14, 2014

It's a City Council election year, but one of the more active political campaigns might not be run by a council candidate. Longtime resident and veteran organizer Lenny Siegel is organizing residents in a campaign that would at least highlight the connection between explosive job growth and housing prices.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 14, 2014, 12:00 AM

Comments (18)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jerry
a resident of Slater
on Mar 14, 2014 at 11:27 am

I would like growth controlled more than it currently is and if office space, employee's, and housing are all tied together and must be balanced then I would like to see things move forward at a reasonable pace. Not the rapid, overheated, haphazard pace that I'm currently seeing. This will lead to trouble, over crowding, traffic congestion and not lower housing prices on iota.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jerry
a resident of Slater
on Mar 14, 2014 at 11:28 am

That should have been "one iota"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jean
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm

The cities collect a lot of tax to run the city from business. the residential housing does not bring in so much city tax. So, duh they want more $$$. Run a ballot measure to require a balance between jobs/housing ratio. force candidates to commit to more housing , and i don't mean towers like on San Antonio.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 14, 2014 at 3:17 pm

I strongly suggest that every member of the city council drive during commute hours to the commercial area east of 101. Go up Rengstorff to Google on Day 1, Shoreline to Google on Day 2, 85 to 101 to Google day 3 etc, and the do the reverse in the evening. Cars are gridlocked here every morning, and that is with many many commuter buses being used. How in the world can we plan to add more congestion to an insane daily commute?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 14, 2014 at 3:20 pm

I strongly suggest that every MV Council member drive to Google (east Bayshore) every morning during commute hours, and then drive from the east side of 101 every evening during commute hours. It is gridlock, and the plan being considered is not sustainable unless MV slows down and thinks about the Balanced MV point of view.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett83
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Garrett83 is a registered user.

Why not have drive in or out of Mountain View or Silicon Valley, on fact every city that has a housing shortage.should. Drive all times of the day, you will be amazed how empty streets are when everyone is settled into normal working routines.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 14, 2014 at 4:22 pm

This is nothing but fear mongering, this will not solve anything, just make matters worse. Lenny must work for the contractor company.

I'm sorry, but we cannot accommodate all of Detroit previous residents in such a small town as MT. View.

What would make a big difference is widening the freeways, the main arteries for entrance into and out of our town. So the workers can travel safely to their destination where housing is much more available and cheaper.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 14, 2014 at 4:23 pm

@jane,

You have to realize that only one City Council Member works, so they don't have to drive in commute traffic like you, I,and many others do. They don't see traffic, ergo it doesn't exist. It must be figment of our imagination!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 14, 2014 at 4:23 pm

This is nothing but fear mongering, this will not solve anything, just make matters worse. Lenny must work for the contractor company.

I'm sorry, but we cannot accommodate all of Detroit previous residents in such a small town as MT. View.

What would make a big difference is widening the freeways, the main arteries for entrance into and out of our town. So the workers can travel safely to their destination where housing is much more available and cheaper.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 14, 2014 at 4:26 pm

@jane,

You could sell your house and move near your employer so you could bike to work as some have suggested. Of course, when you change jobs, you wll have tos ell our home and move again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Doug Pearson
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Mar 14, 2014 at 7:55 pm

I was very disappointed when, at the very end of the process, the City Council voted to "adjust" the General Plan to remove housing from the North Bayshore Change Area. That does not make sense to me and obviously Lenny Siegel agrees.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by thankyouCC
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 15, 2014 at 9:47 am

City Council had many thoughtful reasons to disallow housing at N. Bayshore, including social reasons and environmental reasons. More housing is needed, there is no doubt of that, but for sustainability and for social reasons, housing should be developed on the East/South side of 101, not at N. Bayshore.

The three exiting council members have served the City well, taking in consideration a very complex issue at difficult times of alternating recession and growth. At North Batshore, they made a healthy decision for the City's future. I hope they will be replaced with others are wise as they have been.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. DePorto
a resident of Bailey Park
on Mar 16, 2014 at 12:45 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Adviceo
a resident of Bailey Park
on Mar 16, 2014 at 12:47 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Miss Ellie
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 16, 2014 at 12:49 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Confused
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 18, 2014 at 1:54 am

Why does it seem like the concerns of renters are a priority? Also, isn't it only developers that really benefit? After all, no one is building low income units?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by DEVELOPER
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 18, 2014 at 7:07 pm

DEVELOPER is a registered user.

100% APPROVAL LETS PLASTER ENTIRE MOUNTAIN VIEW WITH CONCRETE AND CEMENT, THE TALLEST THE BUILDING THE BETTER, LET'S BUILD LIKE CEMETERIES, BURY ALL RESIDENTS IN HUGE CONCRETE BOXES.
COUNCILS AT THE TOP OF EACH TALLEST CONCRETE BUILDING. Sun can only shine on his heads, for the residents
LET'S BLOCK ALL SUN LIGHT FOR RESIDENTS. LETS COVER ALL PARKS INCLUDING GOLF COURSES AND WATER AREAS WITH CEMENT PLASTER EVERY SQUARE INCH WITH CONCRETE AND BUILD A HUGE """""CEMENT CEMETERY"""""". MOUNTAIN VIEW CEMENT CEMETERY!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Orest
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 am

Well, this is simple: Vote NO on Lenny Siegel and ask all your friends to vote for anyone but Lenny Siegel. Thank you for clarity.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Standardized Test Prep: When to Start and Whom to Hire?
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,283 views

Finger Food and a Blood Lite?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 935 views