|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
There was a time not so long ago when Mountain View tenants faced displacement from rent-stabilized housing because of redevelopment. These same tenants also had little recourse to get back into the refurbished units, which typically went for market-rate prices.
Now the city is exploring ways to keep affordable housing available in Mountain View, despite the prospect of redevelopment. Taking a hard look at some of these challenges, the city has laid out several strategies to acquire and preserve units that fall under its rent-stabilization laws.
Housing Director Wayne Chen laid out three possible housing scenarios at a study session presented to the City Council on Tuesday, March 19. The idea is to help “mission-oriented” organizations – like nonprofit developers, tenant groups and community land trusts – acquire older apartment buildings and operate them as income-restricted housing, Chen said. The city would largely take the lead on pulling together the funding.
The units could be preserved as rentals, redeveloped into new housing or converted into ownership units. But in each case, the units would stay affordable and the city would have limited involvement, and would not acquire, own or operate the properties, according to the council report.
Council members supported this approach, favoring both its feasibility and community involvement. The average per unit cost of a rent-stabilized apartment is $400,000 to $600,000. The city plans to preserve 50 units but is facing a funding gap of $400,000 per unit, equating to a $20 million requirement. At the council meeting, staff proposed that the city commit $4 million with hopes that it could leverage other funding opportunities to make up the remaining $16 million.
“I think this is a very reasonable plan,” Council member Lisa Matichak said. “I understand and appreciate that the city has to have some skin in the game. And so we do need to have some money that we put in to attract the rest of the money.”
However, Council member Margaret Abe-Koga raised concerns about the remaining $16 million, questioning how the city would secure more funding given the possibility of a state budget deficit and the uncertainty of federal funding.
Chen acknowledged these challenges, but also presented an optimistic outlook about the city’s prospects with state funding sources, particularly in light of the city’s recent “prohousing” designation as well as its plans to tap into new community partnerships.
“I think there are a variety of pieces that we’re looking at. We’re trying to be scrappy. We’re seeking to be opportunistic of the funds that are available and being able to chip away at it,” he said.
The city plans to have the funding in place by next year, in time for it to align with its other ownership and preservation strategies. Speakers at the Tuesday meeting largely supported the plan in the staff report, with suggestions on how to facilitate a responsive community model with partners who are well-positioned to address affordable housing needs.
Anthony Chang, speaking on behalf of the nonprofit Mountain View Solidarity Fund, encouraged the council to listen to historically marginalized communities and to consider a wide range of community ownership models, from community land trusts to supporting tenants organizing to buy buildings and mobile home parks. The city, Chang said, should be supporting community-led efforts by residents to work towards ownership and prevent their own displacement.
“There are ways that this can be implemented that makes it harder for working class communities to be able to actually do this work, and ways to make it easier,” he said.
To facilitate the process, community members suggested that the city consider making the $4 million available sooner to organizations interested in acquiring and preserving properties. Council members were receptive to the idea, suggesting the possibility of an early pilot program.
City housing officials also recommended early notification when properties are up for sale, “first right” to purchase options and local preference policies as tools to promote community ownership opportunities. Council member Emily Ann Ramos supported these measures while encouraging the city to make the process more transparent and accessible to the average person.
Abe-Koga asked about the city’s “missing middle,” moderate income residents who still struggle with housing affordability, and what opportunities these anti-displacement and community ownership strategies might offer to them. Those who make between 80% and 120% of the area median income (AMI) often make too much to qualify for subsidized housing.
“The challenge with the missing middle is that they don’t really qualify for the AMI targets and restrictions. So, my advocacy has been that’s where we need to use our own city funds that don’t have those restrictions. So how do we prioritize that?” she asked.
The city is exploring some of those options Chen said, noting that there could be a homeownership pathway for moderate-income residents too.
Still the focus of the study session was largely on measures that would help low-income residents with housing security.
“The reason why we’re actually working on this started through essentially tragedy … because we saw all the demolitions and all these people losing their homes. And it’s really, really heartwarming to think that our community rallied around that,” Ramos said.
'This blight just seems unacceptable': Large pit prompts frustration from neighborsFebruary 24, 2026 1:13 pm
Meddling in the free market for pricing never produces the desired outcome. Just don’t do it.
Yes. I would love clear examples where this has worked. Please don’t spend my money as a guinea pig. This would be a very expensive experiment.
For all those that say “well someone needs to go first”. Sure. Find someone with more reseources than our town, like a larger city.
Yes. I would love clear examples where this has worked. Please don’t spend my money as a guinea pig. This would be a very expensive experiment.
For all those that say “well someone needs to go first”. Sure. Find someone with more reseources than our town, like a larger city.
The other issue is these “mission oriented” developers have no incentives to maintain and keep up their buildings because….the rent is fixed. So in twenty years, they’ll come back to the city asking for money to replace the roof because it’ll cost twice as much as it does today but the rents haven’t gone up as much.
MAK, as to me ‘seems usual, is trying to change a low-income housing security issue into a Median Income (80%-120% AMI) ownership subsidy issue. NO, as far as I’m concerned / this is NOT a COMMUNITY Priority (it is MAK’s). So, the billions that that particular ‘middle income’ welfare would cost / just in this City/ should just really, As It Now Does, continue residing in the mortgage interest Federal tax deduction. (and the state’s)
If MAK can find some other way (Community Land Trust) to bond & buy the underlying residential land, maybe she would get more & broader support. A Tax on others for more Middle Income Welfare is just not my cup’o tea.