Town Square

Post a New Topic

EDITORIAL: The development dilemma

Original post made on Nov 13, 2009

Recently, the city spent millions to purchase several acres from the county at Moffett Boulevard and Highway 101 with the intention of turning the site into a freeway-accessible shopping center. Also recently, the council set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Do we detect a conflict?

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, November 12, 2009, 3:02 PM

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by Ben
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 13, 2009 at 8:20 pm

The Mayfield Mall was approved by the City Council despite local opposition, because it would bring in sale taxes of $125,000. The HP was approved by the City Council despite local opposition because the city again wanted sale taxes. I do not know if sales taxes where ever collected, but they are not being collected now. Then the Council wanted and approved housing because it would increase the value of the land and generate more taxes. It seems that this is a conflict of interests between what is good for the local neighbors and what is good for the city. Will the Moffett Boulevard and Highway 101 property again repeat history with our tax dollars?


Like this comment
Posted by Jon Wiener
a resident of another community
on Nov 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm

This is a great editorial. One specific suggestion for the site: set maximum rather than minimum parking requirements. Given the proximity of the trail, it seems like the perfect place to try it.

Also, I'd love to see you guys cover what's happening to the homeless population that lives on the site.


Like this comment
Posted by City Worker
a resident of another community
on Nov 19, 2009 at 7:14 am

Ben - thank you for hitting it home. This is another piece of land that sounds great but really are we going to find developers? All this money being spent in this time of need on the wrong issues. If the city had money to spend on these future tax revenue project I would not have a problem but as a City employee that is being told that a I and a bunch of use are losing our jobs next year this sends mixed messages. I am not sure that city council even knows that they are going to be asked to cut real positions this coming year. If they did they may not have approved this purchase.


Can we focus on getting businesses into the vacant buildings all over town?


Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Nov 19, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Ben forgot to add in the "Netscape" Development - the 9-acre largest ever at the time developemnt in Mountain View, built in 1997. It was to be the largest tax-revenue generating project, and many improvements were promised when the development was approved: Underground utilities, a divided median etc. The divided median look 11 years before constructio started. The utilities were never put underground, as the vacancie rate of the development meant that revenue was not there to fund the promises. Please, let's not create one more development with the idea of revenue generation! I agree with City Worker - let's fill vacancies first and then really look at that site to determine what is the best use for it. There sure are a lot of trees there backing up to the trail and the creek....


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

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,828 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,042 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 990 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 660 views