|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The housing crisis in our communities is both an economic challenge and a threat to sustainability. It is defined by the rapid escalation of home prices and rents; it displaces longtime residents; it drives urban sprawl; and it is rooted in the imbalanced growth of jobs without adequate housing for our community.
No single city or company can solve these problems, but together we can establish goals to manage and address an increasingly dire situation. The challenges of housing affordability and environmental sustainability share a common set of answers.
The highly publicized resignation of Kate Downing from the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, due to the price of housing, is just one more reminder that the rapidly rising cost of living in our region is tearing apart the fabric of our communities and undermining our quality of life. At the same time, the couple who created the popular Halloween attraction, the “No Mercy Cemetery” in Old Mountain View, announced that they too were leaving town because their duplex rent was doubling.
We are losing not only the people who mow our lawns and serve our food, teach our children and bandage our wounds. The housing crisis is forcing out many of the people who lead our PTAs, serve on city commissions, and bring the economic, cultural and ethnic diversity that makes the Bay Area such an exciting place to live.
A community is not sustainable if employees and family members are forced to drive great distances through grueling commutes to remain employed or connected. Excessive automotive commuting wastes time and energy, and it is responsible for a strong majority of greenhouse gas emissions from our area. As new regulations implement changes in the California Environmental Quality Act, it will be easier to consider vehicle miles traveled in major development decisions. Environmental studies will show that the simplest way to reduce vehicle miles traveled is to locate housing near jobs.
Urban sprawl here has gone beyond suburban. Demonstrated by jam-packed highways crossing the mountains that encircle the Bay Area, residential development serving our workforce continues to displace farmland, demands more expensive infrastructure investments, and gobbles up more water and energy than compact development in established communities. Forcing people to commute to our cities from Tracy, Los Banos or Santa Cruz isn’t just wearying for them. It’s bad for the planet.
Without adequate housing, our communities cannot sustain themselves. That is, the housing shortage makes it difficult for people who grew up in this area to raise families here. While some young families may prefer to move elsewhere to own a quarter-acre, the evidence is that more of them would prefer culturally vibrant, safe, well-designed urban villages near employment, good schools and, in many cases, near their extended families. We have many retired people living here whose quality of life is diminished by the distance they live from their grandchildren.
A common goal
The job-rich communities of Silicon Valley need to come together to establish a simple common goal: We will do what we can to keep the jobs-housing imbalance from getting worse. That is, as employment continues to increase, we should plan for, and ensure, the development of housing in quantities that serve that growing workforce. We don’t expect everyone to live and work in the same city, but we want to make it easier for people to live near where they work. We can make it easier for employees and our own younger generations to find housing that works for them, without their being forced far away, and without their displacing others in bidding wars.
New housing should be built near centers of employment, shopping and transit. New apartments, condos and townhouses should be built where office parks now sprawl or surface parking lots blight our downtowns. There is still land available to build medium-density housing without damaging the character of existing single-family neighborhoods. Infill development is called “smart growth” because it reduces the demand for energy, water and transportation to serve the same number of people. This is why environmental groups such as the Sierra Club support infill over urban sprawl.
As Mountain View is planning in its North Bayshore Planning Area, new homes should be accompanied by parks, stores, restaurants, services, schools/daycare and transit. Complexes should be designed to accommodate ride-sharing, delivery and bicycling. Designed right, “car-light” development can actually reduce traffic. With a robust portion of affordable units, we can serve the mix of seniors, families and workers that our communities need.
Many people fear the dust, noise and traffic diversion associated with new construction, but those impacts don’t have to be part of the package. Building here is so desirable that our local governments have the authority to demand the highest-quality construction techniques to minimize neighborhood and environmental impacts.
We also have the ability to build more subsidized housing, both by including below-market-rate units in large market-rate developments and by funding dedicated affordable housing. Mountain View has shown that new, properly located projects serving families, veterans, low-income workers, seniors, and even the developmentally disabled can blend well into surrounding neighborhoods. All of our communities have an opportunity to renew our historic dedication to affordable housing options.
People elsewhere wish they had the economic dynamism and technical creativity of Silicon Valley, not realizing that we are falling victim to our own success. The San Francisco Peninsula no longer resembles the Valley of the Heart’s Delight. Indeed, our communities are very different than they were a few decades ago. Change is inevitable, but through careful planning we can preserve our quality of life, protect the environment, welcome newcomers and retain those who have been here for years. Our diverse professionals, service workers, families and retirees aren’t just the envy of the world; they are the heart of our communities.
Cory Wolbach is a member of the Palo Alto City Council; Lenny Siegel is a member of the Mountain View City Council; and Kirsten Keith is Menlo Park’s mayor pro tem.
Cory Wolbach is a member of the Palo Alto City Council; Lenny Siegel is a member of the Mountain View City Council; and Kirsten Keith is Menlo Park’s mayor pro tem.
Cory Wolbach is a member of the Palo Alto City Council; Lenny Siegel is a member of the Mountain View City Council; and Kirsten Keith is Menlo Park’s mayor pro tem.
-
Kay Blaire, right, places a hand on daughter Lisa Alway’s shoulder as they listen to speakers talk about college sexual assault at a rally in downtown San Jose on Sept. 2, 2016. Photo by Veronica Weber. -
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Orange), speaks to the crowd gathered for the “Rally to Recall Judge Aaron Persky” on Sept. 2, 2016. Photo by Veronica Weber. -
A protester holds up a sign while listening to speakers call for justice and legal reform for victims of sexual assault at a rally on Sept. 2, 2016 in San Jose. Photo by Veronica Weber.
Growth, change and development are expected, however, the current rate of business growth and new housing does not relieve the pressures current residents feel when trying to save water, cut back on the amount of trash in our landfills or keep our neighborhoods safe and clean. Mountain View residents are very conscious about conserving and good stewards of our neighborhoods. Now, with so many people walking through the neighborhood from the train station, our neighborhood streets are frequently littered with trash. If the current city council’s are going to make decisions that allow businesses to expand in our cities and bring more people; bring in a trash can or two so that people don’t feel compelled to drop their trash in our neighborhoods! Figure out where the water will come from for all these new people before new expansion is created and just where all the trash is going to go.
Careful planning means making sure jobs are near housing. Allowing unlimited commercial/industrial growth has created the housing crisis. No amount of housing can satisfy the needs of unlimited job growth!
Mixed and denser development is the way to go. If jobs and housing are located near each other, we’re not forcing everyone to take their car everywhere. Anyone who has braved the 101 during rush hour knows that we need new thinking about housing and transportation.
Nothing but empty words from the class of people that have created these problems in the first place. And what you are proposing is more of the same policies that created these problems in the first place. You want to improve housing in the Bay Area? Simple: stop political and bureaucratic interference, stop subsidies and central planning, and let people and companies build the housing they need and want.
It is stupid to think that people who live near their work will never drive anywhere. Couples who live together are unlikely to work in the same place. People change jobs more often than they change homes. People who use bikes or walk to work still will own a car to use for evening and weekend activities.
The best thing to do is to reorganize public transportation all over the Bay Area, make it more efficient and user friendly, clean and affordable. Public transport has to be more efficient than solo driving to make it work, not to be looked on as something for poor people.
Anyone can write what they want. Ultimately, MV will do what Google wants.
I agree with mvresident2003! This is just like the global climate change scare or the 60’s moonshot hoax. Please, Citizens! Join mvresident2003 and I by sticking your head in the sand!
@Rose
While I do agree that the city needs to emplace and be responsible for more garbage cans at and branching out from the San Antonio Caltrain station, the area in and around The Crossings of Mountain View will always look like crap because the current homeowners board refuses to do anything about it. The city is there to help clean up the neighborhood, but help starts at home. It also costs money and the monthly assessments at The Crossings have not even kept up with inflation to raise the standard of maintenance or the landscaping. Yes, some members of the Crossings are too cheap or just don’t care. An even bigger problem at The Crossings is that many homeowners don’t even live here anymore. Even one of the current board members rents out their home. She likes it so much (for the money) she doesn’t even live here! But she sure wants to have a say in how money is spent. In fact, more than 60% of the homes are rented out with a few even on Airbnb which is against the association rules. What would also explain why there is garbage everywhere, and mostly in front of certain homes, is the sense of entitlement among some homeowners who won’t lift a finger or lend a hand to keep the area clean and well maintained in front of their home. They want concierge service for their little palaces at rock bottom costs in terms of low monthly assessments. On top of it all is the abysmal parking situation because so many residents have repurposed their garages for storage, man caves, as bike repair shops, or even as extra rooms while the board does nothing about it. Well you get what you pay for and The Crossings is getting it.
Had it…
Now living in Reno
Housing is affordable, traffic is easy (yes, 4 – 6 pm, some backups, not bad).
Jobs are plentiful for ALL levels of education. Tesla, opening up new plant, with 6,000 jobs.
PLEASE:::: READ the great book of what’s coming in America. AGENDA 21 is a novel, but sets forth the govt takeover of our lives. Tight housing, limited access to food, services, etc. It is a scary but prophetic book.
READ IT….
AGENDA 21
George
As George said, read UN Agenda 21. Also “Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21” which is written by a local, well informed woman. Get it from the Post Sustainability Institute or order on Amazon, cuz ya can’t get it from public libraries since one of the primary tenents of the United Nation’s Agenda for the 21st Century is keeping it hidden from the public while all the while instructing governments on how to grow and take full control of imposing it on all of us.
Don’t delay in reading this eye opener in time to chose candidates wisely, like avoiding Lucas Ramirez, who pushes this hazardous plan so naively.
Seems like we have our resident crackpots at it again…
Please, people, STOP putting out fringe nonsense. Just. Stop. It.
Some more on the subject on the Agenda 21 Truthers:
http://fortune.com/2014/06/18/agenda-21/
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/03/06/new-council-hesitates-before-giving-ok-to-apartment-redevelopment-plan
2006 proposal was for 102 condos. It was cut to 64 the next year with the new council members. Fast forward to 2015 and the project is for 29 houses (displacing 32 households).
Lenny Siegel, one of the authors of this opinion piece, “ended up voting in favor of the project because of its long history with the previous council.”
Please read Jenny’s post above and click through to the article.
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/03/06/new-council-hesitates-before-giving-ok-to-apartment-redevelopment-plan
In one article, the housing problem is laid bare. It is simple… fantastic job growth (a good thing!) combined with too slow housing growth… because of city bureaucracy and NIMBY-ism. Why was this site being discussed for 9 years??? Why approve LOWER density when there’s a shortage of housing???
We need to fast track increased density housing development. Nothing else (including rent control) will alleviate the housing shortage.
Ten years ago when the 333 N Rengstorf was being discussed, the housing shortage hadn’t really begun yet. If you look at home prices, they were relatively flat for 6 years until 2012. Then over 4 years, the home prices DOUBLED. If you reduce this to economics the way some people are doing, then that period of doubling of prices is when the shortage actually began.
So, it made perfect sense to reject that proposal back in 2006. Times were very different. In 2008 there came a recession and a home price bubble burst. That didn’t affect us much here price-wise, but it case doubt on the potential for any housing shortage, sure thing!
I think where the council over-reacted was in way too much incentive for job growth. It’s crazy. They adopted rules for North Bayshore that added an extra 3.4 million square feet of growth, above what was already allowed. THere was no need of that. There was already zoning to permit 35,000 new jobs in the city. And that wasn’t enough? They added potential for ANOTHER 15,000 to 20,000 new jobs? It’s like the people who get cold and turn the thermostat up to 80 degrees. Pretty soon they realize that they overcompensated. This is just on a longer time line. There was definitely over compensation and too much listening to Google’s cries of shortage of space.
While it might have made sense to reject the 102 condos proposal in 2006, it made very little sense to approve the 29 row houses in 2015 when the housing shortage was already a reality and plans already existed for higher density housing.
A couple of quotes from http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2014/07/24/community-activist-to-run-for-city-council:
“Siegel said he isn’t compromising in his opposition to the city’s jobs-rich, housing-poor development pattern.”
“These are issues which require somebody to stick their neck out, that’s what I’m known for doing”
Developers don’t work in a vacuum. Over 12 years many things were considered
for 333 N Rengstorff and the turn to the Row Houses didn’t just happen in 2014, but rather was the end result of a long process. The council has to take that into account when giving final approval. So there you go. A lot of money had been spent on the planning for this property, for both developer and city, over 12 years of time. It did indeed start back when there was no housing shortage at all.
Our quality of life is destroyed building by building. There are not sufficient natural resources to provide for those of us who are already here. We have ugly brown yards, unwashed car and frequent demands to not use electricity, spare the air, and donate to food banks. It is more like a third world country every day.
Rather than seeing how many sardines fit in a can, why not do something to improve our quality of life?
The article makes some very good points:
“No single city or company can solve these problems”
“as employment continues to increase, we should plan for, and ensure, the development of housing in quantities that serve that growing workforce.”
“build more subsidized housing”
“The San Francisco Peninsula no longer resembles the Valley of the Heart’s Delight.”
Rose and others point out that the growing load of workers and residents are causing problems that must be addressed, and developers, home owner associations, and cities must respond.
Time Travel said, “[Home prices] were relatively flat for 6 years until 2012. Then over 4 years, the home prices DOUBLED.” This is a classic supply and demand situation. The Great Recession (2007-2009) caused people to move away in droves. As apartments emptied, landlords lowered rents to try to get tenants. Since 2012, as we are finally beginning to recover from the Great Recession, people are moving back and rents (and purchase prices) are going through the roof.
We need more–a lot more–housing and the only way to get it is by building MANY apartments and condos TALLER THAN 7-8 STORIES.
I agree with Martin Omander, “Mixed and denser development is the way to go.” This existing apartment buildings on California and Latham streets are old enough to be prime candidates for teardown and replacement with much taller apartments.
quit referring to it as a crisis. It’s not a crisis. It happens to be too expensive for some who want to live here but it is not a crisis.
There is no law, no standard, no provision that one must live near their work. How many of you have moved jobs since you started working? In the 15+ years I’ve lived in the Bay area I’ve worked in SJ, MV, Santa Clara, Redwood City, SF, and even Oakland (for a very short time). We bought our house close to my husbands office and what happened 2 yrs later? The company relocated 20 miles up the Peninsula. Sucks for him, his commute can be over an hour some days.
Did we expect someone to pay for us to move closer? no
Was it a crisis for us? no. it’s been a PITA but it’s not a crisis, it’s just what happens when living in large city
Did we expect rent reductions when were starting off and wanting to live close to work but couldn’t afford it? BIG NO
Stop making this some big huge issue. It’s life. Things change. Things get better some times, they get worse some times. Maybe you have to move. Maybe you have to adapt, change, adjust. If you things everything’s a crisis you’re going to have a helluva lot of stress in your life.