|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Google recently cut the number of affordable homes it will build in Mountain View’s North Bayshore neighborhood by 25%, amounting to 350 fewer units than the tech company pledged in past iterations of the plan.
But from Mayor Alison Hicks’ perspective, the change Google made to its Mountain View project pales in comparison to what other cities are contending with – in some cases, Google has delayed or even backed out of entire projects.
“I think you have to put what’s happening here in perspective,” Hicks said.
Ever since the project was first introduced in early 2021, Google has touted a vision to reserve 20% of the plan’s proposed housing for low- and moderate-income residents. Out of the 7,000 units that are expected to come out of the North Bayshore Master Plan, Google set a target for 1,400 of those homes to be affordable.
Projects like Google’s that fall within the city’s North Bayshore Precise Plan are required to make between 15% to 20% of their units affordable. Per the precise plan, projects have the option to dedicate land to the city to accommodate the 15% requirement, rather than build those units themselves.
That’s exactly what Google chose to do: The plan was for the company to give nearly 7 acres of land to the city, which would then be responsible for building 1,050 affordable units – exactly 15% of the 7,000 total units expected to come out of the project.
Mayor Hicks said she sees Google’s land dedication as a mutually beneficial situation.
“I do like the city having more control over how that (housing) turns out, because we work closely with residents of the city,” Hicks said.
In addition to the land dedication, in every iteration of the Master Plan released between September 2021 to December 2022, the tech company said it intended to go above and beyond the minimum requirement by dispersing 350 affordable homes throughout its own market rate buildings, which are referred to as inclusionary units.
In Google’s most recent version of the project plans – which were submitted to the city in mid-March and made available to the public earlier this month – the company remained committed to dedicating land to the city to meet the 15% affordable housing obligation. But absent from the new plan is any mention of the 350 inclusionary units.
A Google spokesperson confirmed that those units were removed from the proposal and will instead be market rate units, amounting to a 25% reduction in affordable homes coming out of the project. The spokesperson attributed the change to the current environment, but declined to elaborate on what that means.
According to Mountain View officials, “It is the city’s understanding that Google couldn’t make the numbers work given all the other commitments in the project, which means it is affecting economic feasibility.”
The change will not impact the city’s recently passed housing element. According to the approved draft that was recently submitted to the state, city staff conservatively did not include the 350 inclusionary units when estimating how many affordable homes will come online in the next eight year cycle “because they are not required to meet the 15% minimum requirement,” the draft states.
A change in affordable housing commitments does have huge implications for how Google’s North Bayshore Master Plan will impact student enrollment in Mountain View public schools, with the reduction in lower-income units reducing the expected number of children who would reside in North Bayshore. School officials have pressed the city and Google to provide more resources — whether money or land — to ensure they have the space and resources for an enrollment spike.
In a draft environmental impact report released late last year, projections showed that the North Bayshore Master Plan would generate 1,471 additional elementary and middle school students, and 700 high school students. After Google cut the number of affordable units the North Bayshore plan will deliver, the projected number of new students was adjusted down to 1,321 additional elementary and middle school students, and 607 high school students in the final environmental impact report.
“Affordable units that have two to three bedrooms can generate more students because one has to have a larger household to qualify for the larger units,” said city Chief Communications Officer Lenka Wright. “Therefore, when the number of affordable units were reduced, the number of students generated were reduced.”
The final environmental impact report isn’t slated to come back to the Mountain View City Council until June, so council members haven’t had a chance to dive into the changes as a group. For her part, Mayor Hicks said the economic downturn is having a clear impact on development.
“Of course I’d rather have the inclusionary units, but I think we have to recognize at the same time that we’ll probably be delivering about 7,000 housing units in North Bayshore, and Google is dedicating sites (to the city) for hundreds of affordable housing units that we really need,” Hicks said.
She also pointed to other Google projects that have been cut more drastically. In the city of Kirkland, Washington, a Seattle suburb, Google was set to buy a chunk of land and become “the tech centerpiece in the city’s development plan,” GeekWire reported – only for that vision to crumble when Google abruptly pulled out of the project in late January.
Closer to home, the San Jose Spotlight reported on April 25 that the delay of a massive Google development in downtown San Jose is leaving the city in limbo.
“It’s not just in Mountain View that (Google is) changing their development plans, it’s all over the country,” Hicks said.
“Mountain View is experiencing far less of an impact than many cities that Google has been working with,” she said.
Just an Observation,
Here we go again trying to reach a rotten carrot on a string in front of the City.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN???
The recent news that Google has cut the number of affordable homes it will build in Mountain View’s North Bayshore neighborhood by 25% is a stark reminder of the importance of moving housing projects along as quickly as possible. With every delay or change, there is a risk that affordable housing opportunities may evaporate, leaving vulnerable communities without the support they need.
As we have seen with Google’s North Bayshore project, even a tech giant can face challenges when it comes to balancing economic feasibility with affordable housing commitments. And while the company has chosen to dedicate land to the city to meet the 15% affordable housing obligation, the removal of 350 inclusionary units means that 350 fewer low- and moderate-income residents will have access to affordable homes.
This change highlights the need for cities and developers to work together to ensure that affordable housing goals are met, even in a challenging economic environment. While it may be tempting to delay or scale back commitments in the short term, the long-term benefits of affordable housing for communities cannot be understated. It is crucial that we prioritize moving housing projects forward as quickly and efficiently as possible to ensure that these benefits are realized.
Because of course they did.
Just an Observation,
Alphabet itself slowed down the project by constantly making changes. It was NOT the cities fault, except for even listening to Alphabet in the first place.
Google has chopped about 1/4 of the jobs in Mountain View this year, and will likely move out in a couple more.
You all actually believed in Alphabet, and now the city is paying a big price.
While Alphabet may have made changes to the project, it’s important to remember that the city also bears some responsibility for the delays in affordable housing in North Bayshore. The North Bayshore Precise Plan was passed in 2012 without any provisions for housing, wasting valuable time that could have been used to build affordable homes. The plan had to be rewritten to include housing, and it took until 2017 to pass a plan that allowed for housing in North Bayshore. Only in 2021 did we finally get a Master Plan. If the city had passed a plan with housing in 2012, we could have had affordable homes by now. This highlights the importance of moving quickly when times are good to ensure that valuable opportunities are not wasted. While Alphabet may have contributed to delays in the project, the city must also take responsibility for its role in the slow development of affordable housing in North Bayshore.
Inevitable – for a city that puts all of its eggs in one basket. Mountain View allowed, or encouraged, one company to monopolize much of the city scape and now that company gets to pull all the shots.
Although Alphabet / Google has hit some uncertainty as its AI offerings have been slower and less well-received than those of other companies, it still has gobs of money in ad revenue. Cutting 350 affordable housing units that are really needed by the community in which its HQ sits — thereby precluding aid to real human beings who are desperate — seems a Scrooge-like calculation. Let’s hope that Alphabet / Google will be a good corporate citizen and again strive to go above and beyond its bare minimum legal obligations to help create a community that can take care of its members.
While it’s important to encourage large corporations like Alphabet/Google to go above and beyond their legal obligations and be good corporate citizens, it’s also important for cities to make their affordable housing requirements clear and upfront. This will help level the playing field between large and small developers, and prevent large corporations from negotiating their way out of building affordable housing. It’s not enough to rely on the goodwill of large corporations, as their priorities and goals can change over time. The city should have clear and enforceable requirements in place to ensure that all developers contribute their fair share to affordable housing. This will help create more stable and equitable communities that can better take care of all their members, especially those in need of affordable housing.
Yet another rug pull by Billion Dollar Google Inc. This is a company that is worth $1,300,000,000,000, a company that just announced quarterly profits of billions of dollars, and a company that can’t even honor its meager commitments to build 350 affordable apartments to mitigate the devastation they have inflicted on the community.
“Inevitable – for a city that puts all of its eggs in one basket. Mountain View allowed, or encouraged, one company to monopolize much of the city scape and now that company gets to pull all the shots.”
Speaking as just one resident, I had not noticed or realized the degree to which Google was buying land in MV. I had not been paying attention to what was afoot in this once sleepy, and frankly boring, little town. I’m trying to make up for that now. But I agree with your sentiment – it is very DANGEROUS for a a town to become totally dependent on one employer. Local politicians strive to do what is best for the company, rather than “we the people”. Those who don’t work for the company get treated like second class citizens. Ugly stuff. And “company towns” are notorious for starting out as heaven but turning into h*** for the workers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
“Although Alphabet / Google has hit some uncertainty … it still has gobs of money in ad revenue. Cutting 350 affordable housing units that are really needed by the community in which its HQ sits — thereby precluding aid to real human beings who are desperate — seems a Scrooge-like calculation.”
Agreed. Google is still one of the richest companies on the planet. Not only that, it is a primary contributor to high housing costs here. Well-paying jobs drive up the cost of housing. Silicon Valley has been a source of well-paying jobs for decades, which is reflected in our housing costs. Google’s strategy to increase headcount in MV, highly paid workers, absolutely hurts low-income and average workers.
“Yet another rug pull by Billion Dollar Google Inc. This is a company that is worth $1,300,000,000,000, a company that just announced quarterly profits of billions of dollars, and a company that can’t even honor its meager commitments to build 350 affordable apartments to mitigate the devastation they have inflicted on the community.”
Well said. Shame, shame, shame on Google.
While it’s true that Google is a very profitable company, it’s important to note that they are still dedicating 7 acres of land to the city, which will result in over 1000 affordable homes. While it’s disappointing that they aren’t able to meet their original commitment of 350 units, it’s important to acknowledge that they are still providing a significant amount of housing for the community.
Additionally, it’s important to consider the positive impact that Google has had on the community. As the center of an economic engine driving the country, Mountain View has become enriched and vibrant. Many businesses have sprung up in the area, creating jobs and opportunities for residents. While there are certainly downsides to this kind of development, it’s important to acknowledge the benefits that come with being at the forefront of innovation and progress.
“it is very DANGEROUS for a a town to become totally dependent on one employer”
Yes, I agree. But what’s the threshold for “totally dependent”?
Just an Observation,
When you have seen so many businesses go down, like Clarks Burgers, when the lockdown hit, then you know that the city is too dependent on a minority of companies in the area.
The reality is that so many business lost so much, and they are not going to recover back to the state they were prior to the pandemic. The pandemic did accelerate the process however, due to the developing functionality of remote work.
Face the facts everyone, things are never going to be normal again here. I find it incredible that so many are saying once the new housing is built, they will be sold or rented. Given the current situation, there is going to be a lot of vacancies, and the current market is still showing a dramatic drop in demand here.
“”it is very DANGEROUS for a a town to become totally dependent on one employer”
Yes, I agree. But what’s the threshold for “totally dependent”?”
All I can say is that I know that the threshold has been crossed when a candidate for City Council is openly denounced as being a “residentialist”, as Li Zhang was in Nov 2022. She was actually DENOUNCED by YIMBYs for being on Team Residents. I still cannot get my head around that. Silly old me always thought that politicians were SUPPOSED to be on Team “We the People” instead of any other. Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore. Residents have somehow become the enemy, and that means the threshold has been crossed. Young YIMBYs clearly don’t understand that they are playing with fire, the precedents they are setting will come back to bite them when another political movement rises up to use the same horrific tactics against THEM.
Furthermore, I know that the threshhold has been crossed when 3 out of 6 sitting councilmembers spoke pretty words to convince the other 3 that “we the people” of MV should be denied the RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO GOVERNS OVER US to fill the vacancy left on CC by Sally Lieber. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/01/06/mountain-view-city-council-to-appoint-a-new-council-member-rather-than-conduct-a-special-election . Those 3 councilmembers are all YIMBY darlings: Lucas Ramirez, https://mvyimby.com/post/2022-07-21-ramirez-endorsement/ , Ellen Kamei https://mvyimby.com/post/2022-09-21-hicks-kamei-endorsement/ , and Pat Showalter https://mvyimby.com/post/2020-09-21-november-2020-endorsements/ .
Great democracies are not typically known for denying the right to vote to the people. The ACTION of these councilmembers essentially killed Zhang’s chances of filling that seat, and allowing residents to have a voice on that body who was willing to speak uncomfortable truths regarding the Housing Element before it was adopted.
The concerns raised in the statement about the denouncement of a City Council candidate as a “residentialist” are understandable, but it’s important to remember that the city should be concerned for both present residents and potential future residents. A healthy city must have affordable housing options available for people of all income levels, including service workers who live in surrounding areas. The city should strive to create a balance between current residents and future residents, as well as between different income levels, to create a strong and vibrant community that benefits everyone. It’s important to remember that creating more affordable housing options is not about taking sides, but rather about creating a city that looks towards the future and is inclusive for all.
“The concerns raised in the statement about the denouncement of a City Council candidate as a “residentialist” are understandable, but it’s important to remember that the city should be concerned for both present residents and potential future residents.”
This comment implies that residents are NOT concerned about potential future residents, it’s the same tired “residents are NIMBYs who are blocking supply” crap that has fed the entire YIMBY movement. Where is the EVIDENCE that residents have been blocking supply? It does not exist. In fact, the targets from the last RHNA cycle were wildly exceeded. https://www.mv-voice.com/news/photos/2021/august/16/39484_col.jpg Target was 2926 units, Total was 8078 units. That is not “blocking supply”.
The worst part of this entire situation is that polarization/civil war that has descended onto MV because of Google and YIMBYs. We now have Team Residents, and Team Anti-Residents. Residents are portrayed as this evil group of people who must be defeated. Why? Because we have high housing costs in MV! Young people are angry, they want to blame someone, and the YIMBY movement has told them “blame the existing residents”. This is called “scapegoating”. It is a foul accusation, presented without evidence, but has an air about it that makes naive people FALSELY ASSUME that it is true.
“A healthy city must have affordable housing options available for people of all income levels, including service workers who live in surrounding areas.”
Stop saying this as if you sincerely mean it, and as if I disagree. Low-income and average income persons are getting the short end of the stick with the Housing Element. I am the one who is fighting to shine a light on the FACT that building housing at a rate of 9 market-rate units for every 1 affordable unit ensures that the housing crisis will CONTINUE for them. It will continue until politicians make it a priority to actually build, you know, AFFORDABLE housing … which requires FUNDING.
It is important to recognize that affordable housing is a critical issue for both present and future residents of any city. While it is true that the targets for the last RHNA cycle were exceeded, it does not mean that the current housing supply is adequate or that the city should stop pursuing policies to increase affordability. The polarization between is unfortunate and unhelpful, and it is important to approach the issue of affordable housing in a collaborative and constructive manner.
Furthermore, while it is important to build more affordable housing, it is also important to consider the impact of market-rate development on housing affordability. Cities must consider a range of policy solutions to address the affordability crisis, including funding for affordable housing development and preservation, rent stabilization policies, and inclusionary zoning requirements for new developments.
Finally, it is not accurate to suggest that cities should only be concerned with the needs of existing residents and not potential future residents. A healthy city must have a balance of housing options available to meet the needs of its diverse population, including service workers who may commute from surrounding areas. Planning for the future and addressing the housing affordability crisis requires a forward-looking approach that considers the needs of all residents, present and future.
@ Clarence Brown
I am interested in your comments about Mountain View housing. But with all due respect, they sound like they were written by AI.
@ Clarence Rown
Sorry I misspelled your last name above.
@ Local News Junkie – Yours is an interesting comment about the writing style of Clarence Rown. I have a different take on his comments which is that I always appreciate them and find him one of the most worthwhile commenters on this site. (I do not know who he is.)
@ Ellen Wheeler
I too find Clarence Rown’s comments worthwhile. His posts just sound like texts I’ve generated with AI, that’s all.
Thank you for taking the time to read my posts. I apologize if my writing style seems unusual or mechanical. As someone who learned English as a second language, I try my best to communicate effectively and clearly, but I understand that my writing may come across as overly formal or robotic at times.
I hope that my writing is still understandable and that you don’t have a tough time reading my posts. If you have any suggestions for how I can improve my writing style, I would be grateful to hear them, but this may no longer be on-topic for this article.
Just an Observation,
Since when was the RHNA need for affordable housing be exceeded?
Every report I read showed a massive shortage of Very low and low income housing in Mountain View.
Hasn’t anyone read the grand jury report here
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2021/Affordable%20Housing%20Final%20Report.pdf
Very Low Income (<50% AMI) RHNA 814, permits approved 218
Low Income (<80% AMI) RHNA 492, permits 212
Moderate Income (<120% AMI) RHNA 527, permits 18
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) RHNA 2926, permits 4219
Somebody must not be understanding how short we are in Mountain View.
The current needs are
Very Low Income (<50% AMI) RHNA 2,773
Low Income (<80% AMI) RHNA 1597
Moderate Income (<120% AMI) RHNA 1885
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) RHNA 4880
What a joke!!!
@ Clarence Rown
Thank you for your clarification. I do find your comments valuable, but certainly written in a much more formal style than you usually find here, similar to AI. But as a former ESL teacher, I applaud your mastery of English.
@ Local News Junkie, I think you have noticed that @Clarence writes pretty words to the point of mini-speeches, but does not respond to my arguments. In fact, he writes words that incorrectly paraphrase what I have written, and then attacks me for holding positions that I do not hold. In debate, this is known as constructing a strawman argument. In formal debate, constructing a strawman is an indicator that the debator’s positions are flawed. Sadly, outside of formal debate, the tactic is often used to fool innocent readers.
For example: “While it is true that the targets for the last RHNA cycle were exceeded, it does not mean that the current housing supply is adequate or that the city should stop pursuing policies to increase affordability.” My POINT was that there is no evidence that residents have been “blocking supply”. @Clarence could acknowledge my point but refuses to do so. Why not? I am not wrong, he cannot show that I am wrong. Instead he deflects with words that imply that I/and others are arguing for the city to “stop pursuing policies to increase affordability.” That is utter nonsense, but a reader who is not savvy to what he is doing might be impressed, and even forget that despite massive YIMBY propaganda, there is no evidence of residents “blocking supply”.
Also, “The polarization between is unfortunate and unhelpful, and it is important to approach the issue of affordable housing in a collaborative and constructive manner.” Agreed, of course. However, @Clarence does not acknowledge that YIMBY propaganda is actually RESPONSIBLE for the polarization, which makes it difficult to approach the issue as he suggests. Team Residents are mocked when attempting reasonable discussion, our arguments are routinely dismissed by YIMBYs as sham, NIMBY excuses.
I think that @Clarence’s writing skills are excellent. It takes great skill to write words in such fashion as he has done here. I think he could go far in the Democratic Party, in fact.
@Clarence, do you agree or disagree with my POINT: there is no evidence that residents have been “blocking supply”? If you agree, it would be kind of you to acknowledge this truth. If not, I’d like to see the evidence that you have against us. Elsewhere you wrote, “it is important to provide evidence to support such claims,” I’d like to believe that you are telling the truth when you write such words.
However, it occurs to me that it might be very dangerous for you to acknowledge that residents have in fact NOT been blocking supply. Because that would mean that residents are not actually NIMBYs. Wouldn’t it?
And if residents are not NIMBYs, that would take quite a bit of steam out of the YIMBY movement. It means that residents are not Team “Baddies” after all.
If residents are not NIMBYs, is it right that YIMBYs have fought so hard to “defeat us”? All of the hate that has been aimed at Team Resident for the past few years would have been misdirected. All of the folks who are YIMBYs and think of themselves as Team “Goodies” might realize that they have been manipulated and misled into doing some pretty awful stuff against people who simply don’t think it’s right for residents to suffer in order to maximize the profits of developers.
And if residents have not been blocking supply, then THIS CAN’T BE THE CAUSE of the housing crisis, can it?
Perhaps the cause of the housing crisis is not “zoning”. Perhaps the cause is wealth inequality. Highly paid workers drive up the cost of housing. Increasing the number of highly paid workers in MV will simply drive costs up even higher. Folks at the bottom of the ladder suffer unless AFFORDABLE housing is available to them. But for-profit developers don’t build housing of any kind unless they get enough ROI, so of course they don’t build AFFORDABLE housing without getting proper compensation for it.
If there is a Team “Baddies”, it’s certainly not the residents of MV.
It is not accurate to say that residents are solely responsible for blocking the supply of housing in a city. While residents may voice their concerns about new development projects, the issue of restricted housing supply is often more complex than simply blaming residents. For example, restrictive zoning laws, minimum parking requirements, and other city policies can all contribute to a lack of available housing. These are often supported by existing residents to the detriment of future and potential residents.
Furthermore, it is important to note that not all residents are opposed to new housing development. Many individuals and groups support the construction of affordable and sustainable housing in their communities. The YIMBY movement, for example, advocates for “Yes In My Backyard” policies that encourage the creation of more housing.
It is also true that the housing crisis is a multifaceted problem that cannot be attributed to a single cause. Wealth inequality is certainly one contributing factor, but it is not the only one. The high cost of construction, the limited availability of land, and the challenges of securing financing for new projects are all additional factors that must be taken into account.
Overall, it is important to approach the issue of housing supply and affordability with nuance and an understanding of the complex factors at play. It is not accurate or productive to simply label one group of individuals as “baddies” or to oversimplify the root causes of the problem.
I asked:
“@Clarence, do you agree or disagree with my POINT: there is no evidence that residents have been “blocking supply”? If you agree, it would be kind of you to acknowledge this truth. If not, I’d like to see the evidence that you have against us.”
Answer:
“It is not accurate to say that residents are solely responsible for blocking the supply of housing in a city.”
That was as good as @Clarence could do. He provided a non-answer, because he has NO EVIDENCE that residents are Team “Baddies” who have been blocking supply, as YIMBYs have asserted for several years now.
When one serves as an apologist for the YIMBY movement, it is useful to not poke holes in PROPAGANDA that stirs the passions of people who are in pain. @Clarence once wrote “The polarization between is unfortunate and unhelpful, and it is important to approach the issue of affordable housing in a collaborative and constructive manner.” Now he keeps the flames of polarization alive instead of putting them out.
There is nothing “collaborative and constructive” about framing residents as being NIMBYs who are primarily responsible for the high cost of housing. It is nothing but lies and dirty politics.
If there is a Team “Baddies”, it’s certainly not the residents of MV.
Highly paid workers drive up the cost of housing. Google, Microsoft and Facebook, all understand this, which is why they pledged billions of dollars to create affordable housing near their campuses.
“More housing near these tech campuses will certainly mitigate rising housing costs. But it’s possible that demand could outpace these increases in supply, and these tech companies could end up building housing that only the highest paid employees can afford. ” – https://www.redfin.com/news/tech-companies-housing-affordability/
Let’s stop pretending: State and local politicians are forcing density onto MV in an attempt to help Google, not low-income and average workers. That’s called OLIGARCHY. Google can’t even keep a promise to create 350 affordable units.
I understand that you have strong feelings about the issue of affordable housing and the actions of the YIMBY movement, but I would like to remind you that personal attacks are not productive or helpful in this discussion. Our focus should be on discussing the underlying issues and finding solutions.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that while residents may not be solely responsible for blocking the supply of housing in a city, restrictive zoning and other policies can certainly contribute to the problem. It is important to approach this issue in a collaborative and constructive manner, as you yourself have acknowledged in the past.
It is also worth noting that Google is still donating 7 acres of land which will generate over a thousand subsidized homes. While there may be concerns about the effectiveness of this approach, it is still a significant contribution towards addressing the issue of affordable housing.
Let us try to keep our focus on the issues at hand and work towards finding solutions rather than engaging in personal attacks or making sweeping generalizations about particular groups of people.
“I understand that you have strong feelings about the issue of affordable housing and the actions of the YIMBY movement, but I would like to remind you that personal attacks are not productive or helpful in this discussion.”
Please stop saying that you “understand”, and then write language intended to patronize and silence me.
The truth is that I am shining a light on your ACTIONS, not making “personal attacks”. Do you deny that you provided a non-answer when I asked you directly “do you agree or disagree with my POINT: there is no evidence that residents have been “blocking supply”? You sound like the kid who crys murder after they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
And it’s weird to hear your pretty speech about personal attacks when you remain silent on the personal attacks that have been made by YIMBYS about the ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF RESIDENTS in MV. Claiming that we are responsible for the housing crisis, by blocking supply in order to raise the values of our homes … that is a pretty vile attack to make without sufficient evidence.
You aren’t using a fair yardstick, but I think you know that.
If there is a Team “Baddies”, it’s certainly not the residents of MV.
Google has contributed to the housing crisis by dramatically increasing the number of high wage workers who live in MV. They should be held accountable for cleaning up the mess.
I understand that you feel strongly about this issue, but it’s important to engage in constructive discussion without questioning the motives of others. The housing crisis is caused by a lack of homes for people who want to live here, and it’s essential to find ways to address this problem.
Instead of blaming individuals or groups, we should focus on solutions that benefit everyone. It’s encouraging that Google is donating land for subsidized housing, and we should continue to work together to find more ways to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Personal attacks and divisive language are not helpful and only serve to escalate tensions. Let’s work together in a collaborative and constructive manner to address the housing crisis and create a better future for everyone in our community.