http://mv-voice.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=5227


Town Square

Affordable housing project helps some, hurts others

Original post made on Feb 27, 2013

The city's below market rate housing program took a strange turn Tuesday night with the approval of an affordable housing project at 819 N. Rengstorff Avenue -- it displaces the same number of people it will eventually house -- while raising concerns about low pay for construction workers.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 1:50 PM

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 2:22 pm

I still don't understand why the city (via tax dollars) is paying $1M to renters. If you don't own your own property, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to live there forever. Seems like these folks got an incredible deal to be able to get cheap rents there for 30 years, and now they're getting big payouts on top of that?

They should move somewhere cheaper if they can't afford the rents here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Otto Maddox
a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Can you imagine renting the same terrible apartment for 30 years?

Maybe have a few less kids and work on getting a better paying job.

I've never agreed with subsidized housing. If you want to live in an expensize (relatively speaking) area it's up to you to afford it.

I somehow manage to afford it. Why do I have to pay half of these people's rent as well?

And what different are 48 tiny apartments really going to make for people? This is all just feel good nonsense wasting our tax dollars.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Does this seem like a practical use of a zillion tax dollars?
How about a little deeper reporting on this story? Like WHY city staff is pushing this project? Or just how much federal grant money is at stake should the city fail to implement this farce?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ted
a resident of Waverly Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Only the government could screw things up this bad. LMAO.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pear
a resident of Waverly Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:54 pm

"it displaces the same number of people it will eventually house"

It displaces 48 people to build 48 units so is this article saying that each unit will house exactly one person?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob
a resident of another community
on Feb 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm

I feel sorry for the people who are basically forced to move out of the area that they called home for decades. I used to live in Mountain View for 20+ Years, but the cost of living became too expensive for me to support my family so I moved to a city out of the bay area and now my money goes to the local businesses in the city I currently live in. I used to feel a 'connection' to Mountain View becuase thats where I was raised, but now I am glad that I live in a smaller city where I can afford to live. No doubt Mountain View has more than enough revenue from the people who can afford to live there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WastedDollars
a resident of Gemello
on Feb 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm

On its face, this seems like a huge waste of millions of taxpayer dollars! Also, I hate to sound petty, but La Costena has the best burritos in Mountain View and will be sorely missed!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Cancel the project or house the displaced people ofsite at their current rents until the project is complete and then move them back at their current rent. What kind of a city government does this to people, one controlled by people who are do not understand what it's like to not be able to get jobs that pay big bucks.

This action is wrong.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Doug Pearson
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 27, 2013 at 7:36 pm

I was struck by a statement by Jonathan Emami, vice president of ROEM, "Prevailing wage is always substantially higher." How can a prevailing wage always be substantially higher?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gene Cavanaugh
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm

Wait - if you think someone is doing something wrong, work at voting them out of office. Whining doesn't accomplish much.
As to "they should <somehow afford it>, no sympathy". Jesus and I both feel otherwise, and I am not especially religious - I just think he got it right.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 27, 2013 at 9:20 pm

This project is the poster child for why BMR housing is a farce. Removing low income people to replace with a very expensive project and hand over larger subsidies.

Politicians likes this type of government pork because they get their names on a plaque.

As to the wages, the union guy offered hearsay, which was enough to bring out more silliness. None of the council members have a clue about what is a fair or liveable wage. Maybe some of them should get real jobs and see what is a decent wage.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg Perry
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Feb 27, 2013 at 9:22 pm


Prevailing wage is higher because California defines "prevailing" as the mode, or most common, wage.

In practice, the mode is the wage defined in the largest union contract, and therefore higher than most workers get. (There might be ten times as many workers who are paid less, but unless they get paid exactly the same amount, that won't change the mode.)

If you defined prevailing according to the median, then you would get a wage that is more moderate and not always higher.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by kman
a resident of Monta Loma
on Feb 28, 2013 at 2:30 pm

This financially makes little to no sense at all. It's another money pit our clues consul is getting us into. And sure, why not, it's not there money.

To think that rent will be $500 to $775 a month is only a pipe dream.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Feb 28, 2013 at 3:08 pm

As long as we keep voting for idiots like Ronit Bryant, this is the kind of waste and bad decisions we can expect. In her words, "We collect the money, we do have money."

How about collecting less of the money instead? Then regular rents wouldn't be so expensive, and we wouldn't need to even consider subsidizing housing. How is spending $1M on these few families fair to all the other families struggling to pay bills? Or all the other families who would like to move to Mountain View and would happily pay their rent?

To those taking the $1M: be ashamed, and quit mooching off others.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 1, 2013 at 1:32 am

Couldn't resist commenting on the obvious. This has to be an onion article? This can't be true? Your driving off low income residents and businessrs and replacing them with == low income residents?

Follow the money .. someone's getting some...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mary
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 1, 2013 at 6:52 am

Why don't you admit that never raising your property taxes causes most of the problems? You sit in your million plus houses that most of you paid next to nothing for and never admit it that something needs to be done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by American Citizen
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 1, 2013 at 7:57 am

Hey, welcome to United Nations "Agenda 21". You are now left the American sector and are now under Global control.
Look it up for yourself, Mountain View was an early adopter of Agenda 21. Also check out the Georgia Guidestones for reference and get ready to "Drink the Kool-Aid".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kman
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 1, 2013 at 11:49 am

Oh Mary, that is what happened in the early 70', everyone thought that raising the property tax would solve all there problems. And guess what, it got so out of control, that prop 13 had to come in and solve the problem by controlling property tax inflating. Maybe a few individuals can afford an increase in there property tax, but that's a small majority.

Guess who it would hurt the most, people that live on fixed income, yes, your grandmother, my grandmother, that can't afford to give more.

But i guess you don't care about that, you and all your like want free money to do with as you want. That is wrong, the taxes in this state are already through the roof. The Key here is to use the money wisely, just like any household. But the gov keeps on pushing a pension fund that will eventually break the bank with it's exponentially expanding cost. Now the gov. is pushing Highspeed trains down our throats whether we want it or not. They will spend Billions on just researching it and then Billions to put it in place and then Billions to maintain it. This is just a small sample of missues of money. But Mary you want grandman and grandpa to pay for it. I hope this open your eyes to reality.


Before you start looking for new money, try looking within at the way the government missuses the vast amount of money it already gets.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm

Failing to see the connection between prop 13 and the 'need' for subsidzed housing. Please enlighten me!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tex
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 1, 2013 at 4:20 pm

The real reason is City Council member Mc Calister needs people to live cheap so he can pay them minimum wage at his ice cream shop on El Camino.

The truth.