Council OKs El Camino initiative | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council OKs El Camino initiative

Original post made on Dec 1, 2007

Mountain View became one of the first cities to sign onto the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" after council members voted 6-1 Tuesday night in support of the improvement project.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 30, 2007, 12:00 AM

Comments (7)

3 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Dec 1, 2007 at 5:30 pm

The El Camino Initiative has one obvious, glaring flaw. It endorses the feel-good and the no-nothing mantras of previous MV City Councils, Planning Commissions, and our ideologically blinded environmentalists --- "higher density housing is gool"; and this time along a badly congested, major traffic artery --- the most important non-freeway road for Northern Santa Clara County, and a road with very poor connections to public transit other than a dysfunctional public bus system. What an ignorant joke by ingnorant do-gooders.

Mountain View should instead take two immediate steps. First, it should impose a temporary moratorium on all new housing construction permits. Second, it should change its policy to predicate its issuance of new housing construction permits on the replacement of existing high density rental and trailer park units with lower density condominiums, row houses, and town houses. The dreadful rental ghettos along California, Escuela, and Castro Avenues come immediately to mind, as do those out of sight, but not out of mind, units along Stevens Creek. Get rid of the rental units. People who own their own housing are far more responsible than renters, and Mountain View will become more prosperous as a result.

Enough is enough. It's time to stop the construction madness and to reduce, not increase, the number of residences in Mountain View.

3 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Dec 1, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Excuse two typos: good, not gool, and concentrate, not predicate. Otherwise, my point remains --- reduce the population density by forcing out the renters and replacing them with more resposiblile and lower density home owners.

3 people like this
Posted by Anne
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 2, 2007 at 6:51 am

I am absolutely astounded by the comments above and I'm not sure where to start. I didn't realize there were individuals in this wonderful city that feel all rental units should be done away with. I certainly hope this is a rare individual that will consider moving out of the city. Many hard working professionals rent units in this town and I don't know how you can say they are any less responsible than homeowners. Plus many haven't had the financial windfall to be able to purchase a home in Mountain View.

3 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Dec 2, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Maybe you should [portion removed by Mountain View Voice staff] not respond emotionally. Your brief comment indicates to me that you have no understanding of the overcrowding and tax base problems created by our previous, and economically ignorant do-gooders on our City Council and our Planning Commission. In case you didn't understand my argument, rental housing is bad for communities. People who own their housing vote far more responsibly. Got it?

[Remainder of post removed by Mountain View Voice staff]

3 people like this
Posted by Jeff Segall
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Mr. Hitchens, I get that you are concerned about traffic. Nobody likes congested traffic. However, housing, high density or otherwise, is not the only, or even the most important, cause of traffic. High density jobs generate lots of traffic, too, and Mountain View has a huge surplus of jobs over housing and has for years. This creates a huge traffic problem, not just for Mountain View, but for the whole area.

So, my question to you is would you support a temporary moratorium on office and business construction as well? The catch is, it's business that mostly pays for city services, not residences, which cost the city as much as they generate in taxes. Low density, single family residential that you favor is especially costly in services. A business construction moratorium would drive businesses away and might lead to a firm like Google out of Mountain View. The city, its libraries, police and fire, would suffer.

3 people like this
Posted by Concerned citizen
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm

mr. Hitchens has raised some interesting and important issues. The city has been struggling to find and provide a solution to the housing crisis in Mountain View. Not everyone can afford a home here. Homes have appreciated so much in the last decade, that most people are priced out of the market. We do need affordable housing. Rental units and homes will fill that need. By the way, not all rentals are in the "ghetto". I am offended by your comment. I know of many rentals amongst million dollar homes.

3 people like this
Posted by Bernie Brightman
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 8, 2007 at 10:30 am

When he wrote "no-nothing" did he mean "Know-Nothing"?

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

The Nut House is back -- with a self-taught chef and Palo Alto native in the kitchen
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 7,234 views

Public statues: Up or down? But does the historical importance of the individuals represented matter?
By Diana Diamond | 40 comments | 4,027 views

Bay Area and Palo Alto RHNA
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,345 views

Stay Together or End the Relationship? Independence or Interdependence?
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,841 views