Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Jun 11, 2012 at 11:17 am

The building above is 908 Villa St, the planned office building.

Posted by BD, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jun 11, 2012 at 2:49 pm

The council on Tuesday, June 5, voted 5-1 to begin a study of such a fee.

Study? I think Mountain View has plenty of ways to charge fees with out having to "study" the matter.

Please citizens, get to the polls this coming November and lets get 5-1 of these idiots, that spend your money frivolously, out of here!

Brian David

Posted by OMV Resident, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm

The poster above is not informed about what it takes to create a fee to fund affordable housing. Cities need to conduct what is called 'nexus study' for it to be legally valid, or else the fee will simply be challenged in court and the city will lose. For instance, here is a link to the study Sunnyvale recently did: Web Link

If you oppose the concept of the fee, that's one thing, but don't just blindly criticize the Council for conducting a study without understanding the facts.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of another community, on Jun 11, 2012 at 10:30 pm

It's time to upgrade all apartments in the City of Mountain View. Make it a vibrant city for young professionals and career starters.

Posted by Joe the Plumber, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 7:04 am

And all the blue collar losers? Where are they going to live?

Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 8:41 am

I'd love to know just what the black crud that comes gushing out of my bath faucet consists of, but Mountain View apparently has no interest in inspecting the quality of the water in residential rental units. This silly little town also refuses to inspect gas appliances installed in residential rental units without a permit. Why would any landlord bother to get a permit when there's no penalty for not getting one?

Posted by kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm

I have an idea, lets add as much apartments until we run out of water. Then will know when to stop. Then no one will have water. Oh well

Posted by Chris, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Now here is a concept: Mountain View could do a rental housing inspection program like other CA cities. I am a landlord in Sacramento and I pay $ 80 for a mandatory property inspection. It is conducted by city building inspectors.It must be generating income, or would have been cut a long time ago.

Posted by Social Worker, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm

If they inspected rental housing they would no doubt uncover some pretty squalid living conditions along California Ave. I've seen some examples, and it ain't pretty. Hard to believe this is Silicon Valley and not some ghetto in the Third World.

Posted by Prometheus Dweller, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm

After renting from Prometheus for several years, I strongly caution the City to watch their back. This management company knows all the ways to get what they want. Be careful how big you let them get in this town.

Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of another community, on Jun 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm

Mountain View has a population density of more than 6,000 residents per square mile, which is high. We are on our way from being a suburban city of sunshine, parks, and fun to being an overcrowded city. Fifty nine percent (59%) of our residents are renters compared 43% statewide. Renters tend to be more transient, and less concerned with long-term city values than owners. If we want a stable, healthy, city, we need to limit our population and encourage home ownership,

Posted by Ann, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Philosophically, I support higher density housing. But am concerned with yet more density located along California between San Antonio and Rengstorff. This area is already congested, already has the highest density housing (Avalon and the condo's next door), we already have one of the lowest park ratios, more traffic with the related accidents and pollution, the worst elementary school (Castro)AND we get few of the benefits other parts of Mtn. View receive, like easy access to a safe trail like Stevens Creek.

In addition, as part of a townhome complex we pay for our roads with our HOA dues, we pay San Francisco to maintain Hetch Hetchy land and we pay for the water for the lawns that San Francisco requires. We can't even get help from the Police to tow abandoned cars since we are a 'private road'.

As I said, if our end of Mtn. View has to put up with all the traffic associtated with all the new developments at San Antonio Shopping center, the last thing we should be stuck with is a boxy poorly designed apartment building. It is about time the city spent some effort improving California.

Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jun 13, 2012 at 10:15 am

We have way to many apartments in Mountain View, let's keep any new apartment developments that we cannot stop to very low density. Remember to vote for City Council candidates that support low density.

Posted by John, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Prometheus has descended upon Mountain View. Sit back and watch the destruction.

Next up on Tuesday the city council will "approve", more like rubber stamp, the change in zoning for Rengstorff and the central expressway

so the titan can raze the buildings and clear the land so 3 times as many apartments can be built.

Sit back and enjoy the show. Our representatives don't represent us, they represent monied interests who don't live here.