Town Square

Post a New Topic

City Council approves razing Rock Street apartments

Original post made on Dec 13, 2018

For some, it was a painful loss of affordable housing; for others, it was an example of the collateral damage caused by rent control. Yet pretty much everyone at the Tuesday, Dec. 11, City Council meeting was disappointed by the proposed development at 2005 Rock St.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 13, 2018, 12:14 PM

Comments (167)

176 people like this
Posted by Bored M
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 12:56 pm

That sucks for those 70, but that's a decent package to tide them over. Glad the remaining members of the council still respect property rights.


192 people like this
Posted by Free country
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Increasing of the home ownership is good for the city.
While rent control is bad, free market will always find a way to circumvent it.


31 people like this
Posted by Nora S.
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm

I'm hoping that the new City Council will immediately tackle this problem. Projects that result in a net loss of housing should not be approved. Mountain View also must find ways to increase the stock of rental housing and affordable housing. I'm all for development, but it must be done intelligently or you end up with an unsustainable mess.


21 people like this
Posted by Lee Ann
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 2:44 pm

Why why why is the city continuing to allow this to happen? Will the developers help with infrastructure, truly find the people new AFFORDABLE housing, give back to the community?
What does Mountain View gain from this?


68 people like this
Posted by Old Mountain Viewan
a resident of Jackson Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Old Mountain Viewan is a registered user.

Because Lee Ann it's all about the revenue the City makes. All this money coming in to Mountain View and yet, parking, housing, overcrowding, NOTHING except making developers richer as well as the City.


296 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 pm

Mountain View renters were warned that rent control was a very bad idea - and extremely counterproductive - but the voters didn't listen. The small rental increases allowed under MVs rent control law, is often not enough for the owner to break even on his/her investment. Naturally, rather than lose money, the owners will sell to developers. Would YOU work for free? Basically, a city cannot tell apartment owners that they are no longer in control of their own investment.

Mountain View is one of the most progressive cities in the entire Bay Area. We are building more housing than any other city, and trying hard to make our city livable. However, there will never be enough housing for everyone - especially at the price they want to pay. Nobody can have what they want, just because they want it.

I feel sad for the children who are in school here, as it is hard to move from an area you've always known, but the City has no right to demand control over an individual's investment. To do that is not democratic nor fair in any possible way, though I absolutely understand the frustration and dismay of those losing their rent-controlled housing. Hopefully, these families will find housing in a nearby area - but if not, we cannot control the economy to give everyone what they want. It's just a hard fact of life.


38 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 3:32 pm

William Hitchens is a registered user.

If it increases the overall quality of the housing stock in Mountain View, which it will, then I'm all for it. MV has a lot of old, dilapidated, and badly maintained residential buildings, most of them rentals. These need to replaced with upscale housing for both aesthetic and public safety reasons.


20 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 3:54 pm

Darin is a registered user.

There are properties that cannot be redeveloped without "a net loss of housing" unless they are rezoned, simply because they were grandfathered when additional requirements were imposed. For example, if our complex were razed and rebuilt with the same number of units, 11-12 additional parking spaces would need to be created to meet current code.


22 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Bayshore
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:12 pm

I can't understand why the city council wouldn't demand for higher density (and change parking requirements), given our housing crisis and this locations proximity to Google. Asking for higher density wouldn't hurt developer profits, but would make the displacement of existing residents less repugnant.

Kicking out existing poorer MV residents to build even fewer homes for richer future residents. Sad, there exist a more innovative solution than this.


65 people like this
Posted by MV`
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:12 pm

Every market distortion has the potential for unintended consequences. Rent control is such a distortion. Many of us tried to warn the voters who spoke with their votes for the rent control proposition.

Prohibiting redevelopment of rent controlled properties would be an additional market distortion, eventually leading to neighborhood blight as controlled properties are under maintained by their owners.

Mandating maintenance with civil and criminal penalties or property forfeiture would be a further distortion. Eventually, the government becomes the landlord of last resort. Just ask a resident of most of the neighborhoods in the South Bronx how they like that. And so on.

IMHO that the best solution is to let the free market work things out.


30 people like this
Posted by Commonsense
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm

As RV’s are strewn across the streets of Mountain View those entrusted with making intelligent decisions have decided to evict people who are the backbone of the community and can’t afford to live anywhere else to benefit people who could live anywhere they want to. These children won’t be able to stay in their schools or stay near support systems and family which has been proven a child in lower income brackets desperately needs to succeed. Their parents will probably be subject to the long commute to Modesto and places farther and farther depriving them of being with their children or having any quality of life whatsoever. Having lived in this community over 50 years it’s very disturbing to watch the soul sucked out of this City in favor of becoming one giant Google-plex. The repercussions will be inevitable and painful if we continue development without any thought to the needs of our most vulnerable and hard working citizens.


10 people like this
Posted by Disappointed
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:41 pm

Only real white collar criminals and crooks would keep thumping for free market. If not proper oversight and penalty, most of these property owners in Mountain View and elsewhere won't care about even the basic safety of their tenants. Crooks think they need to have the freedom to treat the renters like slaves and charge them exornbitant rents and not provide decent living standards. The free market thumping people in this forum are just rotten unethical people and they think America is all about profitting by ruthless exploitation. I dont believe the renters are entitled to anythnng extraordinary and neither do the property owners. The displaced renters at least could use little sympathy and support.that is not too much ask for.


23 people like this
Posted by Jan
a resident of Slater
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:49 pm

The law of supply and demand will always prevail. You want lower cost of housing, build more supply.


31 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 4:52 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Disappointed

The displaced renters have both sympathy and support. "Some tenants would be eligible to receive more than $25,000 to help relocate" according to the article. That's more than 12 times the quoted rent of "$1,940 a month".


47 people like this
Posted by Nihonsuki
a resident of Stierlin Estates
on Dec 13, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Nihonsuki is a registered user.

Instead of increasing supply, we should limit demand. Stop building more office space. Google is already expanding into other cities; let them. We have enough.


9 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 13, 2018 at 5:37 pm

Developers are undefeated in this city. Everytime they want a zoning change they get it. Name one time a developer hasn’t been accommodated. It took a threat of a referendum to save the milk pail and we’re sure melon greed isn’t done with them yet.


53 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 13, 2018 at 5:46 pm

You wanted rent control, you got it!
Now the landlords are tearing down their properties for the land value which is higher than the current valuation based on cap rates from the rental income.

My,my any economist could have predicted this..Keep the bulldozers coming!!


8 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 13, 2018 at 5:55 pm

By the way, this is at least the 8th apartment building, currently; that is being torn down or in process of being “proposed” (approval pending) to be torn down just in this area.


22 people like this
Posted by J
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 13, 2018 at 6:01 pm

I noticed that 2005 Rock Street appears on the city's list of soft story apartments that might require seismic retrofitting. I wonder if that factored in the economics of the proposed rebuild.


20 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 13, 2018 at 6:03 pm

The amount of self-satisfaction and sociopathy being displayed by the people celebrating 70+ people, including children, losing their homes is quite frankly disgusting. "Keep the bulldozers coming"? Is this what Mountain View has become?


66 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority, aka LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 6:39 pm

Too bad you only have feelings for one side, and hatred for the other side-the property owner.

That property owner had been in business for 30 years and he wanted to exit the rental business. He kept his rents well below market. Instead of the tenants being appreciative for what they had for so long, they became selfish and felt that they should have the final say in what happens to the property and not the owner.

These buildings are 50 to 70 years old and have come to the end of their life span. They have provided a service to the community for many decades and they will continue to provide a service to the community in it's new life.

With the next goal of the city council of mandating systemic retrofit on these buildings, it will be to cost prohibitive to do the work for many properties. It will be a problem for many landlords to acquire a loan to do that work in a rent control city.

Rent control has lowered the value of the rental business to where the land is the one that has the value now.

Many things where interesting to watch at last night council meeting. One was that Job Lopez, Lenny Seigel's 30 year friend and John Inks political sign destroyer spoke at the meeting in strong support of Lenny. The other was when one of the female tenants spoke out and said she "as a Mexican American, was offended of the Spanish architecture of the new proposed row houses that she could not live in" she wanted them to change the style of the buildings. No one asked her if Spanish and Mexican are the same things.

No city council has the right to force any property owner from redeveloping their property, according to the zoning standards. What these activists want is to put a demolition moratorium in place so that would forever force these old buildings to be around till they fall down. This is a taking of property.


39 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Let's see . . .
Soft story seismic retrofitting
Rent increase hardship appeals
Semi-annual deck inspections
CPI rent increases for eternity
Annual RHC fees per unit
Tripling of bookkeeping and accounting
60 year old buildings needing $1M+ capital improvements
RHC amortization schedule over 30-40 years, no rent pass through
Threats of a moratorium prohibiting going out of an unprofitable business

I got out earlier seeing this Measure V debacle coming . . .
I reinvested in beautiful Absolute NNN commercial properties elsewhere
No management headaches
No landlord responsibilities
Increased cash flow
The phone doesn't ring
I sleep at night

Carry on City of Mountain View. Keep adding thousands of jobs and cars to the community and expect the landlords to solve the problem YOU HAVE CREATED.

Despicable behavior by city hall. Siegel, Showalter and Rosenberg are gleefully OUT. Pray to the bald baby jesus that's enough to return some degree of sensibility to the city that once was.



1 person likes this
Posted by Member
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 13, 2018 at 8:14 pm

Rent control or no rent control doesn't matter. The city & developers always get what they want. It's all about $$$. When Ca has the major earthquake remember you leaders what you've created because my oh my you will have a major problem to deal with -the fires should have taught you something. Too many people spells disaster cuz it will happen.


16 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 pm

Phew, you should count your lucky stars you're not that guy. He's a seriously unhinged conspiracy theorist. Probably a Trump voter, but he didn't wear his MAGA hat. I wonder how he has all this free time to go to all these meetings? I suppose he's either not a very good landlord or landlording isn't as hard as he claims it to be.


15 people like this
Posted by School mom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2018 at 9:33 pm

If gentrification is making the schools better then I am in favor.
I don’t understand how everyone complains how expensive it is around here yet seceral schools are over 50% low income and are not considered desirable/rigorous. Boggles the mind.


41 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 14, 2018 at 8:30 am

When the City of Mountain View implemented Rent Control for all housing of 3 or more units which were built before 1995, this is what happened:

Rent Control caps rental increases on 15,000 older rental units in the City of Mountain View to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) making the units NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE as an investment to existing and new operators in the real estate industry.

CPI is considered the annual inflation of a region, in this case the Bay Area which was up around 4% over the past 12 months. If a candy bar costs $1.00 12 months ago it should have increased in price to $1.04 today according to the CPI.

Apartment building valuations are determined by Capitalization Rates by buyers and banks that finance them. After that the buyer who is now an investor looks at their Return On Investment Rates. ROI Rates rise directly and only as a result of increased rental income minus all expenses.

Return on investments need to increase over time from rising rents to make an investment ECONOMICALLY VIABLE to the investor. If the rents rise at the rate of inflation or CPI then the Appreciation Rate of that investment is stagnate and mirrors the inflation rate or CPI, meaning there is no financial benefit to investing in it. That would be like knowingly buying a stock that is always WORTH THE SAME FOREVER.

If the building was worth $1,000,000 12 months ago, and now $1,040,000 but the cost of everything else went up the same percentage, food, gas, cars, vacations, etc., what's the benefit to the investor of investing millions of dollars and risking losing capital with all the work necessary to run the business? The building will always be worth the same amount taking inflation into consideration.

NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is the definition of what has happened to all 15,000 ofthese apartments under Measure V. The values dropped dramatically enough leaving owners to either demolish them for new ECONOMICALLY VIABLE housing or accept no appreciation in the future. The larger properties will be redeveloped with expensive housing, further frustrating the shortage of affordable housing in the City.
The smaller properties that can't be redeveloped because of zoning requirements will fall into disrepair over time as the owner cuts back on expenses to cover the financial shortfalls.

This was the most afforadable housing in the city that you destroyed voters!
Now there will be many children and low income families displaced because of the voters, not the landlords.

This the future for Mountain View now under Measure V and you can blame the voters for it!


24 people like this
Posted by Hmm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 14, 2018 at 9:02 am

Having been to 8 different schools by the time i reached HS, i feel for the kids, but with email and such they can keep in contact with their friends.

The population explosion thanks to Obama letting in million and millions of undocumented and hb1 visa, our cities have become saturated. America didn't have a building boom to accommodate for all this, since everything was within the limits of status que before. It's not just here, all major cities are suffering. And yes, eventually they will take over your jobs and become a strong arm in government. This is why we have laws on immigration. If they are not followed, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Like rent control, people you are renting someone else's property. The owner has the right to do with his property what he wants. Duh. You should be happy they are renting it. No one listened to the economics of rent control. We had people on this site cry that they are fear mongers.

The free economy is the best in the world, the most fairest, compared to where man tries to intervene and force it's stupidity on it, it will alter and correct itself. It's a thing of beauty to watch and study, but like nature it does have teeth and can bite at times. And that is why we have all kinds of social services.



17 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 9:24 am

It's so beautiful when the landlords come in and open their mouths. You let them speak, and they'll tell you all you need to know. They quickly disabuse you of any notion that they're doing a public service, no matter how much they try to use focus-tested terms like "housing provider." As Bob so clearly says, once their bottom line gets hurt, they'll make our most vulnerable neighbors suffer and won't have a second thought about it. They'll blame anythinf but their own greed for their actions, like any other domestic abuser.


10 people like this
Posted by Nora S.
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 14, 2018 at 9:28 am

@ School mom

If by "make the schools better" you mean "raise the average income level of the students' families and thus raise test scores without any action on the part of the schools themselves," then I guess that would be one of the outcomes of gentrification. But in truth, the only way to improve schools is to improve teaching, and that is orthogonal to gentrification. Moreover, I believe that one of the greatest contributions of public schools to our civilization is to provide a venue where our kids are required to interact and work with kids from very different backgrounds. The valuable lesson in working with others in a complex society that this provides is something that no parent can give their child, unlike instruction in reading, math, or history. It's priceless.


42 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 14, 2018 at 9:49 am

Obviously Grumpy Minority doesn't listen to reason and only blames Landlords for what the voters did to your city.

Yes, Landlords are housing providers and provide over 60% of the needed housing for your community but when you take away their ability to earn a living doing so, you will lose what they provide.

Tell Safeway to sell their food for no profit and see how many Safeway's stay in your city.

Sorry, Landlord's are like the Weatherman, they don't cause hurricanes but they can sure tell you ones coming!


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 10:28 am

A landlord evicting their tenant is causing misery and suffering. Typical domestic abuser mentality to deny culpability for your actions: "see what you made me do?" says Bob.


21 people like this
Posted by Yimby #2
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:05 am

I am shocked. Shocked! ( Casablanca for reference)
Rent control makes the older rental properties economically non-viable and owners seek to exit the business. Who did not see that one coming?
Yet, landlords are condemned for not continuing to run non-viable operations.
And there are efforts to prevent the owner from exiting a non-viable business.
How does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense in that it tells you we having an “Economic Amateur Hour” going on here. It tells you what kind of thinking is going on behind the “Pro Rent Control” movement.Layer upon Layer of market intervention and distortions inserted into the marketplace.
What could go wrong?
A $2.6 M bureaucracy which takes over a year to process petitions
But that’s OK to the rent control advocates because Emily says “It’s not much” and others say it comes out of the landlords pockets. But think about it: Is this a good “Source and Use of Funds” (accounting reference). Take money from housing provider pockets (where it can be used to replace obsolete/degrading sewer lines, electrical, paint, seismic, laundry equipment) and spend it on lawyers and retired judges to assume the pricing function instead of the free market.

Seldom discussed is what “housing demand” has to do with pricing. There seems to be very little recognition that MV is very near the center of global technological innovation, attracting technical talent to innovate. Instead, the housing providers get blamed for a supply/demand imbalance with invariably leads to pricing increases (works for firewood, cooking oil too). There is also talk of shutting down the demand part of the equation. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Tim Berner-Lee (the real inventor of the internet) is already working on privacy-optimized social media because he sees the negatives of this first generation of social media. What impact will that have on Facebook/Google et al I don’t know. But it illustrates the need to bring in new companies to replace the others which become obsolete. Do you really want Silicon Valley to be another Route 128 Boston, or Research Triangle, which at one time sought to replace Silicon Valley and render this location obsolete? Or Endicott New York, once the center of gravity of Mainframes? Rent is cheap, traffic is low in Endicott. Because they never followed up with a 2nd act. You don’t think it can happen here? No more semiconductor manufacturing, disk drive manufacturing, no motherboard manufacturing, nobody funds hardware development in the valley anymore (pre-dominantly investment in software) Start-up are starting up elsewhere, (unless they are outrageously funded) because Silicon Valley is too expensive.

But there is some good news.
The City of Mountain View is creating more supply and improving transport. It is a thankless job but they are clearly trying. In addition, Rental and purchase prices are coming down. (Example: A high end rental complex near me cut their rent 20%). This is done through market forces, not a $2.6 M bureaucracy. For these things, the City Council should receive credit.


42 people like this
Posted by Free country
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:25 am

@Grumpy Minority
"A landlord evicting their tenant is causing misery and suffering"

This year I had to replace the broken AC at home. If I didn't have money, who would cause me misery and suffering of being cold at winter/hot at summer? Electrician? When pipes at home leak, who causes the suffering? Plumber?
My car broke recently, dealer charged me a lot to fix it. If I didn't have money, who would cause me misery and suffering of walking to work? Dealer?
When I shop for groceries, average check is >$100. If I didn't have money, who would cause me misery and suffering of being hungry?
Really, your logic is lacking.
Low salaries are causing misery and suffering, not landlords.


2 people like this
Posted by Yimby #2
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:36 am

I am shocked. Shocked! ( Casablanca for reference)
Rent control makes the older rental properties economically non-viable and owners seek to exit the business. Who did not see that one coming?
Yet, landlords are condemned for not continuing to run non-viable operations.
And there are efforts to prevent the owner from exiting a non-viable business.
How does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense in that it tells you we having an “Economic Amateur Hour” going on here. It tells you what kind of thinking is going on behind the “Pro Rent Control” movement.Layer upon Layer of market intervention and distortions inserted into the marketplace.
What could go wrong?
A $2.6 M bureaucracy which takes over a year to process petitions
But that’s OK to the rent control advocates because Emily says “It’s not much” and others say it comes out of the landlords pockets. But think about it: Is this a good “Source and Use of Funds” (accounting reference). Take money from housing provider pockets (where it can be used to replace obsolete/degrading sewer lines, electrical, paint, seismic, laundry equipment) and spend it on lawyers and retired judges to assume the pricing function instead of the free market.

Seldom discussed is what “housing demand” has to do with pricing. There seems to be very little recognition that MV is very near the center of global technological innovation, attracting technical talent to innovate. Instead, the housing providers get blamed for a supply/demand imbalance with invariably leads to pricing increases (works for firewood, cooking oil too). There is also talk of shutting down the demand part of the equation. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Tim Berner-Lee (the real inventor of the internet) is already working on privacy-optimized social media because he sees the negatives of this first generation of social media. What impact will that have on Facebook/Google et al I don’t know. But it illustrates the need to bring in new companies to replace the others which become obsolete. Do you really want Silicon Valley to be another Route 128 Boston, or Research Triangle, which at one time sought to replace Silicon Valley and render this location obsolete? Or Endicott New York, once the center of gravity of Mainframes? Rent is cheap, traffic is low in Endicott. Because they never followed up with a 2nd act. You don’t think it can happen here? No more semiconductor manufacturing, disk drive manufacturing, no motherboard manufacturing, nobody funds hardware development in the valley anymore (predominantly investment in software). The traditional systems vendors are ghosts of what they were 20 years ago and are far less relevant. Start-ups are starting up elsewhere, (unless they are outrageously funded) because Silicon Valley is too expensive.

But there is some good news.
The City of Mountain View is creating more supply and improving transport. It is a thankless job but they are clearly trying. In addition, Rental and purchase prices are coming down. (Example: A high end rental complex near me cut their rent 20%). This is done through market forces, not a $2.6 M bureaucracy. For these things, the City Council should receive credit.


16 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm

"Free country," housing is a human right. That you think it's a luxury really speaks to your sociopathy. Kicking someone out of their home is choosing to inflict suffering on them. Same as someone taking food from you or breaking your air conditioner. Do we as a community really think housing security in Mountain View is a luxury only to be afforded to the rich?


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 1:25 pm

The place you live is your home. Pretending otherwise so you can rationalize brutal indifference to the effects of your actions on people's lives is the sociopathy I've been referencing g.


15 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 1:46 pm

Seriously, how does this play out in real life when you're not just talking to your echo chamber of angry rich people?

"Sorry, kid, that you're going to be homeless and will have to change elementary schools. This is the fault of rent control, and besides, this was never your home anyway. It's not my fault, it's the voters of Mountain View. I am in no way responsible for this, now get off my property."

Since you are all rich cowards, though, you probably just pay someone else to do that.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 2:14 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

It would appear that the tenants of the apartments might be able to get an injunction to stop the project because of the following new law:

Senate Bill 540, Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside: Allows cities and counties to create pre-planned zones for affordable housing, helping to speed development in city centers close to jobs and public transit. PROPOSALS THAT COME FORWARD MUST HAVE: 30 PERCENT OF ALL UNITS SOLD OR RENTED TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 15 PERCENT SOLD OR RENTED TO LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 5 PERCENT SOLD OR RENTED TO VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND 10 PERCENT OF MARKET-RATE PROJECTS SET ASIDE FOR LOW-INCOME PEOPLE.

This project does not have any of the required 15+5=20% low income units regarding this project.

Given that this is a requirement under state law, and that the project did not have the 30% moderate income along with the 20% required low income units. This project is illegal.


10 people like this
Posted by H1b
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 2:32 pm

Please do not compare H1b and undocumented.
There are limits on the number of visas, I believe it is about 140k people a year. Just wanted to clear this misunderstanding.


8 people like this
Posted by School mom
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 2:45 pm

By better schools I mean classrooms where most kids are at or above grade level, they come to school ready to learn (having had enough sleep), and where parents are willing and able to volunteer to make the school better.
I support teacher housing targeted at teachers.


33 people like this
Posted by Old Mtn View
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 14, 2018 at 2:50 pm

I feel sorry for the renters here and I used to live in these units for many years when I first moved to town. Available housing is a human right. What isn't a human right is the guarantee for affordable housing in the town of your choice, and Mountain View is one of the most expensive in the whole country. This doesn't make it less of a tragedy for people with kids in school, seniors, etc, but this is what happens all over the world when a town becomes too pricey.

If the city is creating a few hundred housing units or even a few thousand isn't going to solve this, and no matter where you sit on this problem, we can all agree the city itself can't add enough housing for the current and even near term future growth or dig itself out of a hole like this.

I don't want to be trite about the stress that's happening to families, but there's too many people to support the houses we have. Google is the biggest offender with their many new giant buildings in progress around Shoreline, but there are many others. If you can build an office to add a thousand people, why can't you be required to make sure there's enough new housing for the portion of your workforce that will live here? This will probably mean that new office building will mostly stop, but this is what happens with unchecked office construction and any solution to this problem has to deal with the higher and higher number of people who compete for mostly the same amount of homes. Palo Alto took a different path, from what I can see. You don't see a lot of Googleplex buildings, etc there.

That's all I have to say about it, I guess. It's supply and demand and the demand is still accelerating. if you want to keep more apartments here, and that's where lower income people tend tend to live, you have to make it so the economics of running an apartment complex doesn't become worse and certainly you should not talk about landlords as evil people or tell people about your personal anecdote about a bad landlord, or talk about some renter revolution because people will tune you out. I'm honestly sorry to see my old apartment go away, on a personal level. Many good friendships made.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 3:02 pm

How about we upzone Old Mountain View?


14 people like this
Posted by Yimby #2
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 3:10 pm

I am shocked. Shocked!
Rent control makes the older rental properties economically non-viable and owners seek to exit the business. Who did not see that one coming?
Yet, landlords are condemned for not continuing to run non-viable operations.
And there are efforts to prevent the owner from exiting a non-viable business.
How does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense in that it tells you we having an “Economic Amateur Hour” going on here. It tells you what kind of thinking is going on behind the “Pro Rent Control” movement.Layer upon Layer of market intervention and distortions inserted into the marketplace.
What could go wrong?
A $2.6 M bureaucracy which takes over a year to process petitions
But that’s OK to the rent control advocates because Emily says “It’s not much” and others say it comes out of the landlords pockets. But think about it: Is this a good “Source and Use of Funds” (accounting reference). Take money from housing provider pockets (where it can be used to replace obsolete/degrading sewer lines, electrical, paint, seismic, laundry equipment) and spend it on lawyers and retired judges to assume the pricing function instead of the free market.

Seldom discussed is what “housing demand” has to do with pricing. There seems to be very little recognition that MV is very near the center of global technological innovation, attracting technical talent to innovate. Instead, the housing providers get blamed for a supply/demand imbalance with invariably leads to pricing increases (works for firewood, cooking oil too). There is also talk of shutting down the demand part of the equation. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Tim Berner-Lee (the real inventor of the internet) is already working on privacy-optimized social media because he sees the negatives of this first generation of social media. What impact will that have on Facebook/Google et al I don’t know. But it illustrates the need to bring in new companies to replace the others which become obsolete. Do you really want Silicon Valley to be another Route 128 Boston, or Research Triangle, which at one time sought to replace Silicon Valley and render this location obsolete? Or Endicott New York, once the center of gravity of Mainframes? Rent is cheap, traffic is low in Endicott. Because they never followed up with a 2nd act. You don’t think it can happen here? No more semiconductor manufacturing, disk drive manufacturing, no motherboard manufacturing, nobody funds hardware development in the valley anymore (predominantly investment in software). The traditional systems vendors are ghosts of what they were 20 years ago and are far less relevant. Start-ups are starting up elsewhere, (unless they are outrageously funded) because Silicon Valley is too expensive.

But there is some good news.
The City of Mountain View is creating more supply and improving transport. It is a thankless job but they are clearly trying. In addition, Rental and purchase prices are coming down. (Example: A high end rental complex near me cut their rent 20%). This is done through market forces, not a $2.6 M bureaucracy. For these things, the City Council should receive credit.


41 people like this
Posted by No it is not a human right
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 14, 2018 at 3:34 pm

It is not a human right for a private individual to provide housing.

If you feel that it is a human right, then get the government to pay for it and stop steal other people's private property.

No where in the deed restrictions to any property, will it state that is a human right for non owners to stay and live there as long as they want.

If any property owner can no longer pay his bills and the bank forecloses and kicks out the occupant, what law is there to prevent that?

If a property can no longer pay his property taxes, what law is there to prevent the county from auctioning off the property and evicting the occupant?

The answer is, there is no such law. Both the county and the bank will kick you out. That same principle applies to a rental property owner who wishes to go out of business. It is immoral and unjust to deny the rights of the property to use his property as he wishes.

When did we get so many selfish people in our city.

For people to say how unfair it is for kids to move to different schools, this is fake propaganda. I moved 6 times thru my lower grade school years thru high school. I know many people who moved more than that, no big deal. Moving is a part of life.


12 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 3:48 pm

Do you folks listen to yourselves? "When did we get so many selfish people in our city"? People not wanting their neighbors to be kicked out of their homes is selfish, but the landlords kicking people out of their homes because they want even more profits is unselfish? You have spent too much time in your echo chamber.


10 people like this
Posted by J
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 14, 2018 at 4:15 pm

@The Business Man SB-540 appears to allow cities to create a new type of zoning. The 30% requirements only apply to housing within the zone. As far as I can tell Mountain View has not created any "Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone", so those provisions would not apply.


26 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Where did you get the idea that landlords are "doing a public service"? They're running businesses. Yes, they're providing rental housing as part of running that business, but the point of the business isn't to provide rental housing. The point of the business is to make a good return on the investment.

It's the same with grocery stores. They aren't in business to provide groceries; they're in business to make a good return on the investment.

It's the same with gas stations. They aren't in business to provide gasoline; they're in business to make a good return on the investment.

It's the same with restaurants. They aren't in business to provide food; they're in business to make a good return on the investment.


40 people like this
Posted by Greedy landlords? Give it a rest.
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 5:08 pm

So TIRED Of the greedy landlord argument, if anyone posting here owned a building worth 5M and due to rent control, maintenance costs etc, was not making a profit, they would sell and happily take the profit. Many thousands of us live in homes that have appreciated many times what we, or our parents, paid for them. When you are ready to move will you sell your 1.5M house to a school teacher or a minimum wage worker for 300K? Answer is no, so does that make you greedy too?

The failed repeal of Costa Hawkins combined with Mtn View rent control has created this problem, now we all have to live with it. Greed has nothing to do with it.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2018 at 5:09 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to J you said:

“@The Business Man SB-540 appears to allow cities to create a new type of zoning. The 30% requirements only apply to housing within the zone. As far as I can tell Mountain View has not created any "Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone", so those provisions would not apply.”

That is not correct if you read the following from the statute:

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Increasing the supply of affordable housing requires a commitment by both the state and local government agencies. Local government agencies can make this commitment by setting the land use stage for development of workforce housing through advanced planning and environmental review. The state can make this commitment by contributing financial assistance for advanced planning and matching local agencies’ financial contributions to promote and encourage affordable housing.

(b) Providing incentives for local agencies to create Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones in areas that need additional housing close to employment centers and available transit supports the attainment of the state’s housing and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Limitations on the amount of property tax revenues produced by housing, particularly affordable housing, mean there is often an imbalance between the revenue produced and the cost of infrastructure and services needed by the housing.

(c) Providing additional certainty in the housing development approval process requires advanced planning, which, among other elements, identifies standards and criteria by which development will proceed and standards for the mitigation of the environmental impacts of the housing development. The purpose of creating a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone is to conduct this type of advanced planning, so that housing and other development within the zone can proceed on the affected parcels in an expedited manner. A state-administered revolving loan fund will support these advanced planning efforts.

SEC. 2. Article 10.10 (commencing with Section 65620) is added to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:

Article 10.10. Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone

65620. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” OR “DEVELOPMENT” MEANS NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAY INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND OCCUPYING NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A ZONE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL USE DESIGNATION, DENSITY, BUILDING INTENSITY, AND APPLICABLE POLICIES SPECIFIED FOR THE AREA IN EITHER A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR AN ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY, FOR WHICH THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (H) OF PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 65080, HAS ACCEPTED A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR THE ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY WOULD, IF IMPLEMENTED, ACHIEVE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.”

This project is considered a “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” under the new law. It goes on to say:

(b) “Local government” means a city, county, or city and county, whether chartered or general.

(b) “WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE” OR “ZONE” MEANS AN AREA OF CONTIGUOUS OR NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS IDENTIFIED ON A CITY OR COUNTY’S INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65583 ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65621.”

SIMPLY PUT ANY LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE BY DEFAULT

“65621. (A) A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY ESTABLISH A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE BY PREPARING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO DIVISION 13 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 21000) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT ZONE, AND BY ADOPTING A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT SHALL INCLUDE TEXT AND A DIAGRAM OR DIAGRAMS THAT SPECIFY ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IN DETAIL:

(1) THE DISTRIBUTION AND LOCATION OF A MINIMUM OF 100 UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 1,500 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INCLUDE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN ITS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION IN A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION IS LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED UNITS CHOOSES TO ESTABLISH A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE, THEN IT SHALL INCLUDE ITS ENTIRE ALLOCATION IN THE ZONE.”

THUS THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS LESS THAN 100 UNIT MEANS ALL UNITYS ARE SUBJECT TO BE A WORKFORCE HOUSING

(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste, disposal, energy, and other essential facilities needed to support the construction of the residential dwelling units. Essential facilities may include improvements needed to K–12 schools that serve areas within the zone.

(3) The following mitigation measures that will apply to all development constructed within the zone in addition to any and all mitigation measures identified in the environmental impact report prepared for the specific plan:

(A) Traffic mitigation measures.

(B) Water quality and other public utility mitigation measures, including sewage, drainage, solid waste disposal, and energy.

(C) Natural resource protection mitigation measures.

(4) DENSITY RANGES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FOR WHICH THE MINIMUM DENSITIES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THOSE DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMMODATE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AS SET FORTH IN SUBPARAGRAPH (B) OF PARAGRAPH (3) OF SUBDIVISION (C) OF SECTION 65583.2, AND A DENSITY RANGE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED OR DETACHED HOUSING FOR WHICH MINIMUM DENSITIES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10 UNITS TO THE ACRE. A DENSITY RANGE SHALL PROVIDE THE MINIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

(5) Uniformly applied development policies or standards that will apply to all development constructed within the zone, including, for example, parking ordinances, public access requirements, grading ordinances, hillside development ordinances, flood plain ordinances, habitat protection or conservation ordinances, view protection ordinances, and requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(6) The manner in which funding will be provided for the infrastructure and services necessary for the development within the zone, which may include an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority.

(7) Design review standards.

(b) Before beginning the formal environmental evaluation of the specific plan, the planning commission and the legislative body of the local government shall each hold a public hearing to hear oral, and receive written, comments about a draft of the specific plan. There shall be a minimum of 30 days between the public hearings. The planning commission may recommend modifications of the draft to the legislative body. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the legislative body of the local government shall direct that formal environmental evaluation of the specific plan proceed in accordance with the modified draft.

(c) (1) If the local government has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a specific plan pursuant to this subdivision. The local government shall provide the notice of the hearing pursuant to Section 65090 and paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65091.

(2) The legislative body of the local government shall hold at least two public hearings to consider the planning commission’s recommendation and any and all public testimony. There shall be a minimum of 30 days between the public hearings to allow sufficient time to modify the plan in response to the public testimony as directed by the legislative body. The local government shall provide the notice of the hearing pursuant to Section 65090 and paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65091.

(d) The local government shall provide notice of the public hearings required by subdivisions (b) and (c) pursuant to Section 65091, including notice to local agencies, owners of real property within the zone, and each owner of real property within 300 feet of the real property within the zone.

(e) The legislative body of the local government, after adopting the plan, may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking government approvals within a zone. The fees shall be established to defray the cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant’s relative benefit derived from the plan. The local government shall only use the fees to offset its costs and to reimburse funds borrowed from the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65624.

65622. (a) Before a date that is no later than five years from the date the local government has adopted the specified plan, the local government shall complete the analysis required by Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and shall consider whether any amendments are required to the specific plan for the zone. The local government shall amend the specific plan to take into account new information about a physical condition on a parcel within the zone that affects the development capacity of the parcel pursuant to the specific plan.

(b) The local government shall hold a public hearing noticed in accordance with the requirements of Section 65091 to consider amendments and readoption of the specific plan. The amendment or readoption of the specific plan shall begin a new five-year period for purposes of Section 65623.

65623. (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for a period of five years from the adoption of the specific plan pursuant to Section 65621, a local government shall approve a development that satisfies all of the criteria listed in paragraphs (3) to (7), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 65621 in effect at the time the application for the development is deemed complete.

(2) If the local government finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record of the public hearing on the project, that a physical condition of the site of the development that was not known at the time the specific plan was prepared would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, then the local government shall either: (A) approve the project subject to a condition that satisfactorily mitigates or avoids the impact, or (B) deny the project if the cost of complying with the condition renders the project unaffordable for the intended residents of low, moderate, or middle income and approval would cause more than 50 percent of the total units in the zone to be sold or rented to persons and families of above moderate income in violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c).

(b) As used in this subdivision, “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

(c) After the adoption of the zone pursuant to Section 65621, a lead agency is not required to prepare an environmental impact report or negative environmental declaration for a housing development that satisfies all of the following criteria:

(1) The development is located on land within a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone.

(2) The development is consistent with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65621, including the density ranges established pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65621. If a development is not consistent with the elements and standards in the plan, then the provisions of this section shall not apply and the city or county shall consider the application as it would an application for development that is not within the zone, including the preparation of an environmental impact report or a negative declaration for the housing development.

(3) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; AND AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50105 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LEGAL COMMITMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF UNITS FOR VERY LOW, LOW- MODERATE-, OR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.”

So you assumption that the City must declare it as a WORKFORCE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ZONE is NOT CORRECT.

In effect, this law creates an obligation to provide affordable units FOR SALE, not just FOR RENT. The State law defines what is a WORKFORCE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ZONE. The city simply has to adopt any housing project as one being defined as one of those zones. It doesn’t give the city any discretion.

State Law TRUMPS City Council Opinions.


11 people like this
Posted by Nora S.
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 14, 2018 at 5:41 pm

@ Greedy landlords? Give it a rest

You said:
"The failed repeal of Costa Hawkins combined with Mtn View rent control has created this problem, now we all have to live with it. Greed has nothing to do with it."

But that makes no sense. The failed repeal of Costa Hawkins means that landlords could replace old apartments with new apartments and thus avoid rent control. But they aren't choosing to do that: instead, they're replacing rentals with luxury townhouses. I think it's just the usual cash-in mentality. But I don't blame property owners for wanting to make a lot of money. I blame the city for failing to tackle this problem and put reasonable regulations in place to prevent projects like this, which run counter to the good of the community.


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 14, 2018 at 6:17 pm

Darin, I agree wholeheartedly with you, it's the landlords that keep trying to portray themselves as helping our community ("we're not landlords, we're housing providers"). At the end of the day, they're in it for their bottom-line. When what's best for our community conflicts with their profits, they'll choose money, and we shouldn't entertain any illusions otherwise.

"Greedy", um, your argument is to not call them greedy because they really want that money? Aside from offending you and your getting indignant, that's not really an argument.


11 people like this
Posted by @Nora
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 7:07 am

My comment about Costa Hawkins pertained to the fact that none of the new rental housing stock is subject to rent control, therefore it exacerbates the problem by encouraging landlords of older properties to sell to developers so they can replace affordable housing with luxury apartments. There is no incentive to keep an older property, there should be a level playing field IMO. In addition, I don't think rent control is the answer, it backfired just as Prop 13 has. Interesting piece about rent control in Boston Web Link

Unfortunately there is a thing called supply and demand, corporate giants like Google have created the demand. In a city of 80K people,the supply is limited, they can never meet the demand, but wait for the next downturn; it will come.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 8:10 am

Buddy (Curt?), pick a username and stick with it so people can have a conversation with you. Are you afraid people will associate your conspiracy theories and angry rhetoric with you in real life?


32 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 10:45 am

HaHa, your paranoid.
You called me Curt-Buddy the last time I posted, 2 days ago.
The poster who you are now referring to is addressing a comment to another poster by using the symbol @poster.

You are not prevented from have a conversation because of that.

Any reasonable person can not have a conversation with you when you start out with the premise that a renter who rents a temporary housing unit,a month to month lease, then changes that meaning into something in which no one ever recognized before in that it is now their home which now means that they can live there forever and no one, not even the owner can do anything different to the property, like razing it and build new.


23 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 15, 2018 at 11:02 am

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

The difference between a Business Man and a Successful Businessman is the realization that legislative edicts such as SB540 will only exacerbate the situation since our friends in Sacramento have no real life experience with the economics of real estate development. If a project is saddled with unrealistic financial demands that make it economically unfeasible before the discussion even moves beyond a cocktail napkin, NOTHING IS GOING TO BE BUILT.

One only has to look at El Camino Real in Menlo Park which struggled for years to come up with a viable mix of demands on developers before something marginably profitable was finally agreed to. "Make it unprofitable and it will not be built," said the Successful Businessman.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 11:19 am

Sure, dude, just another person posting exclusively under @ from "another neighborhood". Why are you so cowardly as to not post under a username?

Your ridiculous denial of the fact that these are people's homes shows just how little you care about our community. That line may get you approving nods when you use it amongst other rich folks, praising the efficiency of the free market, but it doesn't fly with real people.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 12:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Again,

Given what the NEW state law states, the tenants should go to STATE court to order the City to Void the project for violation of the new law.

Believe it or not, it directly will establish some rent and price controls even though "Costa Hawkins" may still be on the books.


35 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 12:33 pm

Again, you can not answer truthfully and have a legitimate discussion here.

Did not the tenants go willingly to the apartments to rent an apartment? or did someone force them?

Did not the tenants sign a "RENTAL CONTRACT" willingly or did someone force them to sign the "RENTAL CONTRACT" for a month to month tenancy?

Rental means you are paying to use something, with both parties agreeing to the mutually agreed upon terms.

Produce the contract, that any tenant signed where both parties agreed to a guaranteed life long lease to that RENTAL PROPERTY.

All your side is doing is trying to change what the legal definition is to long standing legal meanings and language.

Why is your side trying to force "GREEDY LANDLORDS" to stay in business?

Would your side, the people who you care so much about, buy these properties and let ever one live in them for free. That would solve all these problems.

If you truly had compassion you would do that, but you can not force a private business owner to be "compassionate" to what you want it to be.

Your side, these outside activist groups, many of whom where at that council meeting,they are the one's who wrote Measure V, there is nothing compassionate about that to the owners of the apartment building. Such Hippocrates.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 1:01 pm

Mr. Conroy, you can't even admit that these are these people's homes. I'm doubtful you even view them as people, since they lack the most important things to you, property and money. Please take a moment to calm down before posting, I can almost feel the spittle-flecks from your conspiratorial rants through the screen!

We put limits on what private businesses do with their properties all the time, you just don't like this one that prevents you from gouging and only gets you a fair rate of return. No one but other landlords and paid-off politicians buy your crocodile tears, and your sociopathic attitude towards the affected families just makes you look worse. No wonder you're terrified to post under a consistent name!


35 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 1:21 pm

You did not like a legal contract that both parties signed and agreed to, so you had a mob of people go after a few and by force,you now say that the contract that both parties agreed to is null and void, and now you will tell the business owner what he can and can not do with his property-business.

You use "dog whistles" like "compassion-home-childeren/schools-diversity", to take away long standing contract rights,property rights and legal protection that should be applied equally to both sides.

It it beyond disgraceful what our city has turned into. Under the rouse of just having rent control pass in our city, the activist ran with this and want to take ALL the property rights away from the business owner so they have no say and are just stuck with the bills.

There is nothing American about what you are doing.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 1:29 pm

Buddy, landlords like you who don't live here don't get to call it "our city." If you actually lived here, you would have been able to vote against Measure V and serve on the RHC like you so desperately wanted to, but you'd rather live elsewhere.

Just like Bob above, you're doing the same thing domestic abusers do. "Look what you made me do, baby." "I'm the real victim here." No one buys the multimillionaires as being the victims when families are losing their homes. It'll get you a bunch of high-fives and back-pats at the next landlord city council huddle, but normal people rightfully look at you in disgust.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 2:05 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Has anyone noticed how John Inks is nowhere to be seen at the City Council or the RHC meetings lately?


34 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm

Yet again, you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.

All you do is make an emotional argument. No other business in the USA is subject to these kinds of property-business takings with no compensation for the loss.

I will say what you say, "show me the tax return of these millionaires" that you always talk about.

Other wise you have proven over and over again of what they say about people who "ASSume"


9 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 2:35 pm

People who own multimillion dollar properties are multimillionaires. Pretending otherwise is just sad and shows how little you can defend your stance, or maybe just how bad at math you are.

To your other point, I'm not going to apologize for not wanting members of my community to be kicked out of their homes so someone else can get rich. If you find that unconvincing, well, that says more about you and your fellow landlords than the people of our city.


38 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 2:57 pm

You are not a millionaire if you own property. Who carries the note on the property? and how much is it?

Your rent control has already devalued those apartments as a business, now you want to devalue the land even more so as to permanently screw the landlords.

No one has any money in hand, it is in the land value, no one can do anything with any of that until it is sold and all debt is paid off.

Again, you can only make an emotional argument.

Use your compassion to help others, instead of stealing from some to give to others.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Is your argument really that people who own multi-million dollar properties aren't multimillionaires? You should sit down with your accountant, you're getting fleeced!

Your general argument continues to prove my point, Curt: landlords aren't providing Mountain View a community service, they're looking out for their bottom-line. When the interests of our community conflicts with their profits, they'll choose money every time. Am I wrong?


32 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 3:24 pm

The only thing right about you is that you are wrong all the time.

You probably defend bank robbers as well, I mean they need to pay rent, so their kids can go to school and not have to move, and buy food. No difference, the banks are greedy millionaires who do not care about our community, oh wait, they do not have any restrictions on them like a landlord does in Mtn. View.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 3:32 pm

Typical non-response from someone who can't make an argument, Curt. Without a counterargument, you accept the truth of my statement. You're a delicate snowflake, though, so you need to add bluster because you're so offended.


44 people like this
Posted by Who ARE you
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 15, 2018 at 3:49 pm

Grumpy minority....who ARE you anyway? HTG, the way you talk and the expectation you have that people owe you, where is this coming from? I read your posts and they're just these emotional rants and I have to agree with @grumpy, you're not rational. You seem to have zero understanding of risk, money, investment. You just talk about "rights, rights, rights".

Thank god people are coming around and seeing that life isn't free, choices have repercussions, and we can't always get what we want. I'm going to say that you sound exactly like a spoiled little child,.....not sure if moderators will leave it up as I do agree that it's somewhat derogatory but quite frankly it's exactly what you sound like. A spoiled brat


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 4:11 pm

You go first, who are you? It's cute that Curt needs his friends to defend him.

If you consider not wanting families to get thrown out of their homes as acting like a child, we really should rethink what happens when we get old. It speaks volumes that none of you have disagreed with me about the priorities of landlords, but instead clutch your pearls and screech.


36 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 4:17 pm

You sound like Lenny Seigel, if you are not him, you think the same.

Lenny got his butt kicked out of office, didn't he. Do you know how rare that is? Even when you had the Voice endorsing his re-election and even his 30 year long friend and activist Job Lopez was out there vandalizing John Inks political signs, defacing them, removing them, just to silence free speech from someone he does not agree with. Typical from your side.

By the way, do you know that you are, or a, Lenny is a Multimillionaire? Well he is, using the same standards that you use for landlords.

Did you know when Lenyy's daughter moved out of his house, Lenny could have gave the daughter's bedroom to some unfortunate low income person, but he did not.

You people never walk the talk you always regurgitate.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 4:35 pm

Wow, you really are unhinged, dude. Take some time off the internet for a bit, your obsession with Lenny and Job is worrisome. Your inability to have any other argument and falling back to conspiracy theories is not a good sign. I'm waiting for you to post an actual argument, but it seems like that isn't coming. Seek help, obsessing over your opponents and their families is frankly terrifying.


37 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:06 pm

OH the irony of it all.

You are not outrage, disgusted, or offended that Lenny is not providing a "HOME" to those people who are the "BACKBONE" of our "community". He has ample room in his MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR single home in Old Mtn.View.

You also have an issue with people who are trying to have a conversation with you, but you can not have an honest back and forth, nothing but emotional platitudes.

Everyone has rights, equal rights. It is wrong for some people to take rights away from others to then give to others. You have every opportunity and right to chase your dreams in this country. If you make bad decisions, then those consequences are on you and no one else.

Enough said.


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:09 pm

I'm glad you agree with my initial argument: landlords aren't providing Mountain View a community service, they're looking out for their bottom-line. When the interests of our community conflicts with their profits, they'll choose money every time. Every post of your reaffirms this, so thank you.


31 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:21 pm

Just one more thing.

You talk about obsession with Lenny?

He has had an obsession-hatred toward landlords for at least 40 years. Going back to 1980 when he started his first war against landlords in his first of 2 failed attempts of rent control being voted done by the residents in our city.

Good grief, that is what you call an obsession.


43 people like this
Posted by Who ARE you
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:24 pm

I have no clue who you are and I don't know who Curt is. I'm just a typical resident of MV who reads these articles. And truly find your posts to be alarming. Stop the shaming. No one wants people thrown out of their homes. No one wants people displaced. But most of us live in the real world and realize life is not always easy and choices can be hard.

You keep slamming landlords. HTG, how the hell do you expect there to be rental properties if there aren't landlords? Are YOU willing to risk your entire financial future on property investment? These people carry a tremendous financial burden...you act as if they're all out there sitting in armchairs rubbing their hands gleefully and raking in money like it's falling from trees. You don't acknowledge the costs associated with property's management, you refuse to acknowledge the risks they take on.

And the biggest question. Where were you when the market dropped and many investors were upside down on their investments? You're not able to make this investment and you're sure as hell not willing to bail someone out when the market falls. You only talk about taking. It's insane this viewpoint you have, it's arrogant, it's overly simplistic and its completely and utterly inrealistic. You don't talk real world, you talk "me me me"


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:25 pm

"You call me obsessed with this person? Well, I'll show you, let me tell you about how I've been tracking his life for four decades. Who's obsessed now?"

Do you lack all self-awareness?


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 5:31 pm

Who ARE you, this was a simple choice. This was a project kicking 70+ people, many of them families, out of their homes. It was replacing that building with fewer homes, housing fewer people, available for purchase for over $1.3 million. How is that a tough choice? In a massive housing crisis, this project reduces the housing supply. Again, it proves the point I've been making: when our community's interest conflict with profits, they'll choose dollars.


35 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy Minority
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 6:12 pm

There is an old expression, you can't fix stupid.

In the ultimate height of being a Hippocratic, you had Saint Joseph Church, behind Castro St. sell of their parking lot 3 years ago to a developer to build yet another office space and town homes. What did they get for that property? $8 Million, $10 Million? There goes your argument about people always siding with a profit instead of the community.

That Church could have given that land to a non profit developer to build and provide low income housing, they did not do that, did they! "In a massive housing crises" they chose the dollar. If it is good enough for the church, then it is good enough for everyone else.

I would bet that you would never sell you car for half price to help someone out in our community, you would want full value and nothing less.


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Holy cow, Curt, you have the grammar and spelling of a child, and the same level of reasoning. First your proof that you're not obsessed by recounting your years of meticulous record-keeping about the person, now you think pointing out that other people put their own self-interest above the rest of the community somehow disproves that landlords do that. Youre crushing it, dude, it's great arguing against someone who keeps proving my point for me.


9 people like this
Posted by @Grumpy. Correction
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 7:29 pm

The Sobrato deal is a land lease the land was not sold. St Joseph’s parish has never say in the matter, the Diocese they cut the deal and the financial details were never shared, at least when we asked.
Are you a parishioner of St Joe’s? If yes you know their weekly take barely covers costs. It’s not a wealthy parish, lots more f ‘dollar’ Catholics.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 7:35 pm

Of course he's not a parishioner, he invokes the Church as a cudgel to "prove" his point. I'd be surprised if he's been in a church or read a Bible in his years following Lenny. He worships the Almighty Dollar above all.


24 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Dec 15, 2018 at 7:57 pm

Maybe you two could meet in a bar somewhere and hash this out? You've both made your points and it's getting a little old now.
Maybe someone else has an opinion... or perhaps it's time to close this thread?


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 15, 2018 at 8:04 pm

Interested, I'm thankful for your earlier post which admitted the point I was making, landlords are concerned about their bottom-line over the interests of our community. You seem to believe this is how things should be, which is where I'd disagree, but at least we agree on the reality facing us.


12 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 15, 2018 at 9:42 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Why Business Man is only a businessman. What he claims is an "illegal" project is anything but. Get the facts before spreading fake news! Until Mt. View goes through the necessary process of designating an area for 100-1,500 homes, completes an overarching EIR for the entire area and complies with a number of other state requirements, these Workforce Housing Opportunity "Zones" are nothing more than legislative concepts. And a developer still has to be convinced there's money to be made building unsubsidized affordable housing. Good luck with that. Ain't going to be happening in Mt. View even with an "Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority." Where's that money going to come from? The land is too expensive and such projects will never pencil out. Try Tracy or Modesto farmland at $7,500/acre.

The simple facts:

SB540 Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone

The synopsis: To streamline the housing approval process, SB540 allows local governments to designate certain areas for housing development near public transportation, known as Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones (zones).

There is a minimum of 100 and maximum of 1,500 units per zone. At least half of the homes within the zones must be affordable to households with low or moderate incomes. Establishing a zone calls for completing one overarching environmental impact report (EIR), identifying a source of funding and creating a Specific Plan.

The Specific Plan should include:

Uniform mitigation measures for traffic, water, natural resources, etc.
Consistent parking ordinances, grading ordinances, habitat protection, public access and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Design review standards

Funding sources, including an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority.

For a period of five years after the Specific Plan is adopted, the jurisdiction maintains authority to approve (in 60 days) developers’ individual projects within the zone. As long as projects are consistent with the EIR and Specific Plan, developers do not need additional environmental reports for each project within a zone.

The incentive: The point of affordable housing zones is advanced planning, which makes more developments available in an expedited manner.

How to participate: Localities can submit an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for a grant and/or zero-interest loan. And developers that meet all the zone criteria can expect approval of their plans within 60 days of submittal. One important note: Developers have to pay prevailing wages to qualify.


29 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 15, 2018 at 10:07 pm

Grumpy Minority,

You obviously have no understanding of how the world works and expect others to subsidize your existance. I would say that I find your position entertaining but in reality your more the norm than not nowdays so your just another boring socialist taker to me.

I was a Landlord in Mountain View for 40 years and made millions, 10's of millions and sold everything in 2016 and reinvested without paying taxes in other non rent controlled markets last year. I pulled every penny out of your community and did very well and most of what I sold went to developers for demolition and redevelopment of non rental units.

The point I'm making here is that this is Mountain Views future under rent control and you and your socialist friends and advocates cannot control the rental market. It's guys like me that invest and give you a place to live but were not investing in Mountain View anymore.

I would think this would make sense to anyone but like I said, "your socialist taker mentality seems to be the norm nowdays" so I'm not surprised.

So I will invest and make millions more elsewhere...:)



8 people like this
Posted by @@Grumpy.Correction
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 10:28 pm

The deal between the church and the developer was not a straight cash exchange, as the rumors say. My feeling was that the developer structured the deal so he could have a better tax situation for himself. Donations are tax deductible to a charitable organization.

That property was valued in the area of 8 to 10 million dollars and the church did not give it away to the developer. It would make no sense. If they gave it away, why they did not give it to a non-profit housing organization. They got their money.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2018 at 11:26 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Businessman.

Simply put, your information is incomplete. As you indicated it is only a synopsis, and designed by your self.

You stated:

“SB540 Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone

The synopsis: To streamline the housing approval process, SB540 allows local governments to designate certain areas for housing development near public transportation, known as Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones (zones).

There is a minimum of 100 and maximum of 1,500 units per zone. At least half of the homes within the zones must be affordable to households with low or moderate incomes. Establishing a zone calls for completing one overarching environmental impact report (EIR), identifying a source of funding and creating a Specific Plan.”

Incorrect because the law also stated:

“(1) the distribution and location of a minimum of 100 units to a maximum of 1,500 residential dwelling units. A local government may not include more than 50 percent of the number of units in its regional housing needs allocation in a workforce housing opportunity zone. IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION IS LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED UNITS CHOOSES TO ESTABLISH A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE, THEN IT SHALL INCLUDE ITS ENTIRE ALLOCATION IN THE ZONE.”

The City needs allocation was reported in the Bay Area Government Associations report found here (Web Link) . This report indicated that the city is lacking in 334 very low income housing units 360 low income housing units, 484 moderate housing units, but has a surplus of 1235 above moderate housing units. In other words there are 1,178 units for the very low to moderate, or median income housing lacking. This is not by mistake but by design, the City has intentionally under performed the housing needs for years.

The specific project only have 17 units, thus less than 100 units, thus the state law definition of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone means it would apply to all units in the project.

As far as the “City” defining the project as a WHOZ? The State law defines any residential project is a WHOZ because of the following text of the law:

65620. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” OR “DEVELOPMENT” MEANS NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAY INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND OCCUPYING NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A ZONE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL USE DESIGNATION, DENSITY, BUILDING INTENSITY, AND APPLICABLE POLICIES SPECIFIED FOR THE AREA IN EITHER A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR AN ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY, FOR WHICH THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (H) OF PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 65080, HAS ACCEPTED A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR THE ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY WOULD, IF IMPLEMENTED, ACHIEVE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.”

This project is considered a “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” by the City of Mountain View, isn’t it? Thus under this part of the new law the “Housing Development” is satisfied under STATE law. It doesn’t matter what the City thinks. The act also stated:

“(b) “Local government” means a city, county, or city and county, whether chartered or general.

(b) “WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE” OR “ZONE” MEANS AN AREA OF CONTIGUOUS OR NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS IDENTIFIED ON A CITY OR COUNTY’S INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65583 ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65621.”

SECTION 65583 states:

“ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 - 65589.8] ( Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143. )

65583.

The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following:”

All I suggest is that if an attorney does discover my "Cited direct text" is valid, a request should be filed into the California State Courts only for some kind of judicial remedy. The county courts are flaky regarding enforcement of state laws when they are running contrary to real estate interests in the county.

This is going to be a very interesting learning curve regarding new laws recently passed.


19 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:44 am

Businessman,

I think your thoughts on law are as corrupt as the Judicial system itself.
I work with Economics and the Constitution and you will never win over that!!
You are a great example of what is wrong with our State!


8 people like this
Posted by Grumoy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 8:36 am

Bob, your post makes it clear we're in agreement: once the interests of our community ate into your bottom line, you chose to make your millions elsewhere. It's so strange that the landlords keep pretending to disagree with my argument, without ever actually arguing against it. Instead you keep throwing up all kinds of rhetorical bluster that you're so offended people would dare state money is more of important to you than our community.


9 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 16, 2018 at 9:47 am

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Business Man, once the City of Mountain View has adopted a Specific Plan to their General Plan for a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone(s) and completes their state-mandated EIR for that zone (the entire purpose of this law--streamlining the process so individual builders/developers don't have to go through the 18 month EIR process for every development), and then sets up a city sponsored Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) or a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority to make such an undertaking even remotely profitable, then, and only then, would anything remotely related to affordable housing have any chance of succeeding in Mountain View. The original (un-enhanced) IFD has been around since 1990 and was only used twice statewide. If the city were to propose issuing bonds to finance the subsidized Zone projects the voters would have to approve issuance of bonds in a citywide election.

You need to read up on the financial side of how these things work (or don't work). Just because Sacramento comes out with some legislation to show they're doing something about the housing crisis doesn't mean it is a viable program or will make any difference. SB540 will never work in Mountain View. The dirt is too expensive. Let's start with that: $500K/door just for the land.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 10:45 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Bob you said:

“I think your thoughts on law are as corrupt as the judicial system itself. “

But it is the state law, period. There is nothing about me about it. It is state-wide and the beginning of state-wide price controls. Specifically:

65623. (3) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; AND AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50105 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LEGAL COMMITMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF UNITS FOR VERY LOW, LOW- MODERATE-, OR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.”

It doesn’t just apply to Mountain View. You said:

“I work with Economics and the Constitution and you will never win over that!!”

So far economics is a corrupted science, just watch the movie “Inside Job” and read the web page from the American Economist Association found here (Web Link). No economist has yet to disclose their interests in the current reports. The fact is you cannot claim that economists are NOT corrupt either. As far as the California and U.S. Constitutions, price controls are NOT unconstitutional, at least not yet. You said:

“You are a great example of what is wrong with our State!”

A personal attack, not a real discussion.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“You need to read up on the financial side of how these things work (or don't work). Just because Sacramento comes out with some legislation to show they're doing something about the housing crisis doesn't mean it is a viable program or will make any difference. SB540 will never work in Mountain View. The dirt is too expensive. Let's start with that: $500K/door just for the land.”

The fact is if the STATE law is not complied with, then the project CANNOT move forward. The law was designed NOT to hold the STATE or LOCAL governments financially liable for the lack of housing but the industry itself. The INDUSTRY must pay the price because of its intentional design of forcing people to pay for more housing then they need. As I demonstrated that the City of Mountain View lacks more than 1,000 housing units as of that report.

If the industry wants to declare it cannot do this, than have it do so, and promote public funding for housing to be used to take land under eminent domain and build public housing projects. The INDUSTRY will never do that because if the public projects increase housing inventory say 10%, than a loss of 10% of value of the private housing will occur, as you pointed out ECONOMICS.

The INDUSTRY either must comply with state law or choose not to be in business.


9 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:04 am

Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Keep rollin', rollin', rollin'
Though the streams are swollen
Keep them bulldozers rollin'
Rawhide!

Through rain and wind and weather
Hell-bent for leather
Wishin' my gal was by my side.
All the things I'm missin'
Good vittles, love, and kissin'
Are waiting at the end of my ride.

Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Keep them bulldozers rollin'
Rawhide!

Sing along everyone!!


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:15 am

Bob, I have to give you credit for being honest. Unlike Curt and others, you don't try to hide your opinions, that you are happy these families are being evicted from their homes. What is interesting is that none of the usual suspects have tried to distance themselves from you. I wonder why that is?


6 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:18 am

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

In all due respect Business Man, you clearly don't understand how SB540 can be implemented in communities. It isn't a mandate, it's a tool for cities to use as another means of facilitating more affordable housing--assuming the financial side of the equation can be worked out. As you so aptly pointed out, if projects aren't profitable given the risks involved, developers aren't going to build things. The "industry" as you so fondly refer to it has its priorities and one of them is to not lose money on boondoggle projects.

Perhaps you can explain to the readers how the finances work under this SB540 program for a modest 800 square foot apartment in Mountain View which costs $800,000 to build? Keeping in mind of course that the occupants (2) can make no more than $53,400/yr (50% of AMI) to qualify.


4 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:38 am

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

HELLO BUSINESS MAN!

From the State Capitol's very own Legislative Counsel's Digest on SB540. Please pay particular attention to the following phrases in the summary:

"would authorize a local government, as defined, to establish a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone . . ."

"The bill would require a local government that proposes to adopt a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone . . ."

"The bill would authorize a local government, after a specific plan is adopted and the zone is formed . . ."

"This bill would require a local government that has formed a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone . . ."

The bill does not REQUIRE a zone be established. It only sets out the criteria involved in establishing a zone in the jurisdiction (as a Specific Plan to the General Plan) which then becomes part of the Housing Element in all city General Plans statewide and is reported on annually to the state's Department of Housing and Community Development.

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:44 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“In all due respect Business Man, you clearly don't understand how SB540 can be implemented in communities.”

From what the text states, there is a REQUIREMENT, not an OPTION. It may be that when this law was passed the real estate and apartment interests didn’t seem to see what the text stated. When it comes to the laws, as Antonin Scalia said in a good book, it is not what the legislature wanted, but the text of the law that is enforceabable. Simply put, the courts will act on the text of that law alone. You have a right to that opinion, but the courts will determine if a city complied with it. You said:

“It isn't a mandate, it's a tool for cities to use as another means of facilitating more affordable housing--assuming the financial side of the equation can be worked out.”

Simply put, that is not what the text of the law says. If that text said is was a “suggestion” it would have said so. But I cannot see anything claiming it is voluntary. You said:

“As you so aptly pointed out, if projects aren't profitable given the risks involved, developers aren't going to build things. The "industry" as you so fondly refer to it has its priorities and one of them is to not lose money on boondoggle projects.”

The industry can lead (make more affordable housing), follow (comply with the new mandates) or get out of they way (take the losses of reduced property values are dropped due to increased choices and reduced shortages) You said:

“Perhaps you can explain to the readers how the finances work under this SB540 program for a modest 800 square foot apartment in Mountain View which costs $800,000 to build? Keeping in mind of course that the occupants (2) can make no more than $53,400/yr (50% of AMI) to qualify.”

I do not need to. The law is written the way it is, either take it or leave it. The fact is that the real estate market is going to go through serious correction. The Yahoo Housing Index has lost 30% in the last year found here (Web Link). The housing market is in another bubble that got worse after 2007. The industry is going to suffer a severe market correction also because the feds are raising interest rates. That is not the responsibility of the state or the residents of any housing, it was the poor decisions made by the private housing industry.

Either the industry takes responsibility, or it can leave. It cannot blame anyone for the current mess but themselves


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:48 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successfull Businessman

THe law defines what is a Workforce Housing Oppurtinuty Zone, NOT THE CITY, as I pointed out here:

65620. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” OR “DEVELOPMENT” MEANS NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAY INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND OCCUPYING NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A ZONE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL USE DESIGNATION, DENSITY, BUILDING INTENSITY, AND APPLICABLE POLICIES SPECIFIED FOR THE AREA IN EITHER A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR AN ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY, FOR WHICH THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (H) OF PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 65080, HAS ACCEPTED A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR THE ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY WOULD, IF IMPLEMENTED, ACHIEVE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.”

This project is considered a “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” by the City of Mountain View, isn’t it? Thus under this part of the new law the “Housing Development” is satisfied under STATE law. It doesn’t matter what the City thinks.. The act also stated:

“(b) “Local government” means a city, county, or city and county, whether chartered or general.

(b) “WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE” OR “ZONE” MEANS AN AREA OF CONTIGUOUS OR NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS IDENTIFIED ON A CITY OR COUNTY’S INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65583 ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65621.”

SECTION 65583 states:

“ARTICLE 10.6. Housing Elements [65580 - 65589.8] ( Article 10.6 added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1143. )

65583.

The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all of the following:

SIMPLY PUT ANY LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ANY CITY IS A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE BY DEFAULT.

Why can't you read?


16 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 11:53 am

This what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you.
I didn't vote these poor people out of their affordable apartments. You did.

So shame on you for hurting little children and mommies. And I thought liberals cared so much about poor people?


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 12:08 pm

There's that domestic abuser mentality again: "baby look what you made me do." The only people that voted these people out of their homes are Chris Clark, Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, and John McAlister. The only people choosing to evict them are the landlords serving them with eviction notices. To pretend otherwise is simply gaslighting.


12 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Grumpy Minority,

So, you believe the property owner should subsidize low income people's housing with his private bank account?

Why don't you subsidize them if your such a great person and are so caring of others?

First, go make $10 million and put it in 20 units and rent them for less than the taxes, expenses and work hard managing it and maintaining it. Ya, you got to pickup those cigarette butts and beer cans the tenants throw on the ground too!

You can't go around pointing fingers at landlords when the voters did this to them otherwise do it yourself and make us proud of you!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 12:30 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Bob you said:

“So, you believe the property owner should subsidize low income people's housing with his private bank account?”

NO , THE STATE LAW REQUIRES IT. You said:

“Why don't you subsidize them if your such a great person and are so caring of others?”

WHY? THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THIS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING RULE UNDER THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE ACT. You said:

“First, go make $10 million and put it in 20 units and rent them for less than the taxes, expenses and work hard managing it and maintaining it. Ya, you got to pickup those cigarette butts and beer cans the tenants throw on the ground too!”

IF YOU TREATED YOUR TENANTS WITH RESPECT AND DID NOT TRY TO CHEAT THEM, LIKE MY PREVIOUS LANDLRD DID, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TENANTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BETTERMENT OF YOUR PROERTY, WHICH OCCURRED WITH MY PRIOR LANDLORD BEFORE THE NEW ONE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. You said:

“You can't go around pointing fingers at landlords when the voters did this to them otherwise do it yourself and make us proud of you!”

THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT WAS LEGISLATED, NOT VOTED. IT WAS DTERMINED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT THAT THIS PUBLIC POLICY IS SOUND AND MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNDER THE STATE LAW IS A RIGHT TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY. PERIOD.


8 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Businessman,

Nothing you say makes any sense and as I stated before..way, way, way too long to read. besides your citing a senate bill not actual law.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:01 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Bob you said:

“Nothing you say makes any sense…”

I just recite the law, and you cannot claim otherwise. You said:

“ and as I stated before..way, way, way too long to read.”

You choose not to read the law, that is your choice. Buit that doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist, it only means you choose to be in denial of it. You said:

“besides your citing a senate bill not actual law.”

All you have to do is click the enacted law, it is identical. It was legislatively approved and signed by the governor, here is the relevant parts from the tab of the ENACTED law(
(Web Link):


You didn't read this part:

Senate Bill No. 540 CHAPTER 369

An act to add Article 10.10 (commencing with Section 65620) to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to land use.

[ Approved by Governor September 29, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State September 29, 2017. ]

The law was legislate4dc, apporved and signed as written.

Article 10.10. Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone

65620.

For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(a) “HOUSING DEVELOPMENT” OR “DEVELOPMENT” MEANS NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE. A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAY INCLUDE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND OCCUPYING NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SQUARE FOOT AREA OF THE STRUCTURE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A ZONE SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL USE DESIGNATION, DENSITY, BUILDING INTENSITY, AND APPLICABLE POLICIES SPECIFIED FOR THE AREA IN EITHER A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR AN ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY, FOR WHICH THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (H) OF PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 65080, HAS ACCEPTED A METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY OR THE ALTERNATIVE PLANNING STRATEGY WOULD, IF IMPLEMENTED, ACHIEVE THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.

(b) “LOCAL GOVERNMENT” MEANS A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY, WHETHER CHARTERED OR GENERAL.

(c) “WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ZONE” OR “ZONE” MEANS AN AREA OF CONTIGUOUS OR NONCONTIGUOUS PARCELS IDENTIFIED ON A CITY OR COUNTY’S INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 65583 ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65621.”

The fact is the act and the law are identical.

The law simply states:

65623. (c) After the adoption of the zone pursuant to Section 65621, a lead agency is not required to prepare an environmental impact report or negative environmental declaration for a housing development that satisfies all of the following criteria:

(1) The development is located on land within a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone.

(2) The development is consistent with the plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 65621, including the density ranges established pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65621. If a development is not consistent with the elements and standards in the plan, then the provisions of this section shall not apply and the city or county shall consider the application as it would an application for development that is not within the zone, including the preparation of an environmental impact report or a negative declaration for the housing development.

(3) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008; AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; AND AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50105 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.

THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LEGAL COMMITMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF UNITS FOR VERY LOW, LOW- MODERATE-, OR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.”

It appears that denial of the existence of the law is not a defense. Why must I point this out?


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:15 pm

It's beautiful to see the cognitive dissonance that occurs when the landlords here are confronted with a purely factual statement that none of them disagree with. This conflicts with their self-image and the image they want to project ("housing providers"), but they find themselves unable to argue against it. So they lash out about how it's everyone's fault but their own and they bear no responsibility for the eviction notices they're delivering. It's truly a sight to behold. Thank you, Bob and Curt.


15 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:15 pm

So, has Mountain View been designated a "Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone"?

It is clearly written, "This bill would authorize a local government, as defined, to establish a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone...."

Has Mountain View "established" this?

If not, then it doesn't apply to Mountain View. Move on.


4 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:21 pm

Grumpy Minority,

People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks at other people.
No pun intended here!


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Bob you said:

“So, has Mountain View been designated a "Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone"?”

THE STATE LAW DEFINES THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPPORTUINTY ZONE, AS I POINTED OUT. THE CITY CAN “CREATE” MORE WHOZA IN ZONES OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS BY DEFAULT UNDER THIS ACT A WHOZ. You said:

“It is clearly written, "This bill would authorize a local government, as defined, to establish a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone...."”

YES, BUT THAT WOULD BE “ZONES” OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. LIKE MIZED USE ZONES WHERE APARTMENTS ARE ABOVE RETAIL STORES, OR LIKE GOOGLE’S PLAN TO HAVE OFFICES AND APARTMENTS. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO READ LAW IT APPEARS. You said:

“Has Mountain View "established" this?”

THE STATE LAW REQUIRES ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO BE DEFINED AS WHOZ, PERIOD. You said:

“If not, then it doesn't apply to Mountain View. Move on.”

ALL STATE LAWS APPLY TO MOUNTAIN VIEW AND EVERY OTHER CITY OR TOWN.


15 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:30 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

You're a lost cause, and woefully misinformed by your own misinterpretation of statutes.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:32 pm

Again, Bob cannot argue the merits, so he lashes out. Are you going to shift to celebrating families losing their homes again?


13 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:42 pm

I don't argue with libs..it's pointless because they are always victims that operate on emotion and discard reality.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:47 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

"You're a lost cause, and woefully misinformed by your own misinterpretation of statutes."

Please provide a state statute, law case, or otherwise independently validated proof that the text I point out does not exist.

Here is proof of my interpretation:

“The text must be construed as a whole. “In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.” K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988) (per Kennedy, J.).Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2573-2577). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.”

This means that the written text of the statute simply must be complied with, and the state courts are required to follow it to the letter unless it is determined to be unconstitutional. You must understand this. Also:

“These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936) (per Roberts, J.). Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 2667-2669). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.

The law is to be followed as written per California enacted law. The California legislature and the governor agreed with the public policy and enacted it as it is, until it is considered unconstitutional you cannot deviate from it. Also:

“The question . . . is not what Congress ‘would have wanted’ but what Congress enacted.” Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618 (1992) (per Scalia, J.). (Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2012-07-05). Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (Kindle Locations 4892-4894). Thomson West. Kindle Edition.

In effect, that requirement means that what the California government passed is what must be done. Only when this law is considered unconstitutional can the law be ignored. You simply don’t understand this.

You assume that my opinion is not based on some kind of proven criteria. The book titled “Scalia and Garner's Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts” seems to disprove your claim.


18 people like this
Posted by Who ARE you
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:48 pm

Well, there you have it.

You have Grumpy Minority and TBM who want to be able to live wherever they want whether they can pay for it or not.

You have "Bob" and Successful Businessman who make investments and expect a profit.

Those of you agreeing with Grumpy Minority...if you go to work every day for free then by all means continue to support Grumpy Minority. But if you expect a wage, a PROFIT, then you are absolutely ingenuous in your support of this ideological thought that everyone should be able to live wherever. And if you go to work every day and expect a wage, a PROFIT, then you cannot fault landlords, you cannot shame landlords. for expecting the same thing.

Simple.


11 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:49 pm

If you take a conservative and remove reasoning and accountability you have a liberal. Its that simple.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 1:58 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Who ARE You,

No one is entitled to a profit, they must work for it. As long as a homoeowner or tenant pay their legal costs for housing, they CAN live wherever they want.

mike rose,

Please provide some evidence that I am violating the terms and conditions before claiming that my contributions should be blocked?

Bob,

I am using a "conservative" legal philosophy in the interpretation. It is not a "liberal" point of view. Is Antonin Scalia a liberal? Is John Roberts a liberal?

To me it appears that personal attacks are the only approach that seems to be provided by these people.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 2:10 pm

The last several posts from Bob and Who ARE you show the cognitive dissonance. None have disputed the facts, they just try to insult the person they're arguing against. For people complaining about emotions, none of you seemed capable of presenting a logical argument. Frankly, it's because you accept my clearly uncontroversial statement.


18 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 2:56 pm

Ok Grumpy Minority,

No one is entitled to a profit even though they invest there life savings into the business and work their butts off. I get it but when they do profit its considered unreasonable. Is that your position?


13 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Take away reasoning and accountability you have a liberal.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 3:12 pm

Nice repost of the phrase of the day from your Breitbart desk calendar.

I've posted my initial argument many times already, the fact that you can't comprehend it isn't surprising, given that it triggered you.

I'll state it again: landlords aren't providing Mountain View a community service, they're looking out for their bottom-line. When the interests of our community conflicts with their profits, they'll choose money every time. Certainly, you can't disagree with this, Bob, can you?


8 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 16, 2018 at 3:20 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Hey 45, if you're reading this, there's a great candidate for your CoS position at the White House. The creative interpretation of law would serve you well during the remaining days of your presidency.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 4:23 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“Hey 45, if you're reading this, there's a great candidate for your CoS position at the White House. The creative interpretation of law would serve you well during the remaining days of your presidency.”

What creativity? I simply stated the letter of the law. Conservatives hate it when they get a conservative argument that disproves their agenda. The truth can always be proven either conservatively or liberally. But those subject to the new price controls are simply going to be in denial even after a court orders the law to be complied with.

It can be amazing when you exploit conservative reasoning to prove your point.

It was amazing to see state law require inclusionary housing. Of course, this is not only legal but constitutional under the California and U.S. Constitutions.


16 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 5:00 pm

Grumpy Minority,

You said, "landlords aren't providing Mountain View a community service, they're looking out for their bottom-line. When the interests of our community conflicts with their profits, they'll choose money every time."

So, if Safeway charges money for food and there are hungry people that can't afford to buy it, Safeway should give it to them and lose money month after month, year after year? O.K, but how do they do that, is it sustainable and is it their responsibility?

Are you working for free or at a loss? If so, is that your responsibility to society too?

I can't believe that's your position that Landlords owe society something at a loss. If you think Landlords should offer reasonable priced housing, they have to be able to buy it at a reasonable price and have reasonably priced expenses and taxes. If not, is that sustainable, losing money month after month, year after year?

I think it's stupid trying to explain something to an adult that should be understood by anyone over 8 years old that paid for something at least once in their life.

If I want a Mercedes and I can only afford a toyota, should the Mercedes dealer give it to me at the cost of a Toyota? Please tell me you know the answer.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 5:25 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Bob,

You cannot compare housing regulations with any other retail company. Housing is considred a "special" market because of the history of exploitation in housing discrimination, and unsafe products.

Simply put, if you cannot make a profit in this market, then why not use your ellis act privelege and quit. You can find another more lucritive market can't you?

Oh, I forget, it doesn't take a college degree to be in the housing business.

In fact, it almost appears that if these people weren't in this business, they would not be able to find another line of work. They talk as is this is the only work they can achieve.

Landlords have a choice, like developers, if they don't want to be in the business they are free to find another one. You are not FORCED to be in this business.

Please explain to us why you cannot find another line of business?


9 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 5:49 pm

Businessman,

I saw this in a movie, "You need me on that wall, you want me on that wall". You know the movie and the context of Jack Nicolson's "You can't handle the truth" speech. Only a sociopath thinks that way!

No, I don't have to be a Landlord and operate at a loss or lower income just to be a Landlord. I do it for profit and when it's not lucrative under my terms, I sell it off like I did in Mountain View when rent control came in. Of course, I reinvested all of that in a profitable market and has made me much more by doing so.

I'm not sure I understand your Housing business theory that you stated, "You cannot compare housing regulations with any other retail company. Housing is considred a "special" market because of the history of exploitation in housing discrimination, and unsafe products."
What's this about?
Did you feel cheated somehow? As you said, I don't have to be a landlord. Well you don't have to be a tenant either do ya? So, why do you do it?


So, the answer to your question is No, I don't have to find another line of business, just another profitable market like I did.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 5:57 pm

Wow, Bob, that statement really triggers you, doesn't it? You have to go off on a rant rather than simply saying that it is a true statement. You even admit it in your response to TBM: "I don't have to find another line of business, just another profitable market like I did." Why are you so afraid to just say the truth?


13 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm

O.K, you got it out of me, I have to make money and a profit.(That felt good coming out of the closet)

I must be a monster that takes advantage of poor women and children, old poor folks and probably kicks little helpless dogs too.
You caught me! Did I miss something? Oh that's right, I forgot, you work for free or at a loss.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 6:11 pm

Oh my goodness, you are really triggered aren't you? Even while cheering on the bulldozers and celebrating families losing their homes, you act offended that someone points out the simple reality. But, if you really want to know the part that makes you a monster, read your posts about bulldozers. At least you're honest and up-front about it, unlike Curt.


16 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 6:38 pm

You didn't like my song..Rollin,Rollin,Rollin?

Well, then why did you vote for rent control and the consequences of have those poor people and so many more to being thrown out of their Apartments on to the street?
I don't get it? You do understand the consequences of your voting for rent control?
So, why did you cause this?



19 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 6:43 pm

Darin is a registered user.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

If a property owner rents for a profit, then he/she is a greedy landlord. If a property owner rents for a loss, then he/she isn't a property owner for long. If a property owner decides to stop renting the property for a loss, then he/she "is causing misery and suffering" by evicting the tenants.

You can't win. You can't break even. But at least for now, you can still get out of the game.

And people wonder why investors buy residential property and then leave it vacant rather than renting it out to someone.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 6:47 pm

You keep trying those same lines the domestic abusers use: "baby look what you made me do." It doesn't work there, doesn't work here, but it shows a lot of your character that you keep using it. The only people who voted for people to lose their homes are Chris Clark, Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, and John McAlister. The only people who choose to evict people from their homes are the landlords handing them eviction notices.


17 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm

Grumpy Minority,

Even the article states,"The developer made no mention of Mountain View's rent control program, but pretty much everyone in the room expressed confidence that it had prompted the redevelopment."

Now if everyone at the meeting new that rent control was the reason why they are tearing down their apartments then you should have known this too.

Why did you vote for rent control knowing your were going to hurt all these people? Was it because you were going to benefit from it, not caring about all these people? I think so, and your selfish for taking advantage of them like this so you could save a few hundred bucks a month!


10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 16, 2018 at 7:22 pm

"Why'd you make me hit you, baby?" You're really going all in on that line, huh? Not surprising.

Your attempts to win the argument just keep proving my point: when the interests of our community come in conflict with a landlord's bottom-line, dollars win out every time. You're ashamed of this, so you have to find someone else to blame for your actions.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2018 at 8:21 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

All I can say is that given the WHOZ act all projects within EXISTING residential zones will need to have the following unit allotments:

“(3) AT LEAST 30 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50093 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OR PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF MIDDLE INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 65008; “

That means they will be affordable to those making 80-120% the median income levels in the City they reside

“AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50079.5 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; “

Which means the price will need to be affordable to those making 50%-80% of the median income levels of the city.

“AND AT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE WILL BE RESTRICTED FOR A TERM OF 55 YEARS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 50105 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NO MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SOLD OR RENTED TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF ABOVE MODERATE INCOME.”

Which means the price will need to be affordable to those making 0-50% of the median income of the city.

The law also states:

“THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LEGAL COMMITMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF UNITS FOR VERY LOW, LOW- MODERATE-, OR MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR 55 YEARS FOR RENTAL UNITS AND 45 YEARS FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS.”

In other words 30%+15% +5% of the entire projects in any existing residential zone which by default is a WHOZ will have price caps for rent or sale. A total of 50% of the units in these projects.

Simply put, this project does not have any of this in an existing residential zone which makes it by statute a WHOZ. This project should be brought to State court to determine if it complies with the law. If it does not, then the project has to be put on hold.


14 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2018 at 8:38 am

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Please give it a rest. No one voted "for people to lose their homes". Nonsense like that undermines any argument you're trying to make.

The majority of the council voted for a redevelopment project that complied with the existing laws, rules, and regulations. Period.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 8:49 am

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Darin, thank you for rejecting Bob's claim about the proponents of rent control. Unfortunately, there was one group empowered to vote to evict these families, and it was council. Council had every right to reject the project, including since the project was not compliant with zoning. They had a single choice in front of them, and Chris Clark, Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, and John McAlister voted for them to lose their homes. It may be inconvenient and uncomfortable for you, but that's what happened.


10 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Dec 17, 2018 at 9:48 am

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Reminds me of "No collusion!" Keep repeating the same thing over and over until someone believes you . . . Good luck with that.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 10:39 am

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

My dude, if you want to deny reality, there's not much I can do. It seems absurd to me that you would claim that the council majority approving the destruction of people's homes or the landlords delivering eviction notices are somehow not responsible for their actions. It's telling that the landlords arguing against haven't actually presented a counter-argument.


10 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2018 at 1:43 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Why do you insist on claiming that anyone "voted for them to lose their homes". The council majority "approved the project based primarily on the rights of the owner to replace the apartments and its general compliance with city rules."

And I'm not sure which of Bob's claims you think I've rejected. But then again, I haven't read everything posted in this thread, especially TBM's posts, and replies to TBM's posts. And I'm not sure how you might have construed anything I actually have posted.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Darin, here's this from Bob, "I didn't vote these poor people out of their affordable apartments. You did." Now, surely you must disagree with him, as there's no way you can believe that city council bears no responsibility for these families losing their homes and agree with him on that. The other part that you hopefully disagree with is his general glee about the destruction facing these families.

As to the responsibility of Council, they faced a trolley problem, where one leads to these families losing their homes and another leads to them staying. No amount of Kafkaesque reinterpretation changes that fact. Chris Clark, Margaret Abe-Koga, Lisa Matichak, and John McAlister all knowingly chose the side of the tracks that led to these families losing their homes.


7 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2018 at 6:27 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

If you want to turn the situation into a silly trolley problem, then sure, let's play the game.

One decision (approving the project) leads to these tenants being evicted; the other allows them to remain in their homes. Therefore, the council majority voted to evict the tenants. Or...

One decision (passing Measure V) leads to tenants all over Mountain View being evicted; the other allows property owners to continue as landlords. Therefore, the 2016 election majority voted to evict many, many tenants all over Mountain View. Or...

One decision (approving the project) leads to the property owner using the property as desired; the other forces the property owner to continue being a landlord. Therefore, the council minority voted to enslave the property owner for the purpose of mandatory service as a landlord.

Gee, what a fun (if pointless) game.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 6:41 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Your tone indicates you reject Bob's argument, but you refuse to admit it. Strange.

Only one of those situations is a direct consequence of the action, pretending otherwise shows that you're not arguing in good faith. As was brought up even by the lawyer for the tenants, the property owner can exit the landlord business whenever they want, they have that right under the Ellis Act, and no one disputes it. What the council had the legal right to do was stop the housing complex from being replaced by fewer homes for wealthy owners.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 6:43 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Can't help but note that Curt has stopped posting now that he needs to have a username to post.


8 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Apparently I was too subtle for you. I reject all three of the arguments because they reduce complicated situations to silly trolley mind games.

The fact that you don't recognize that all three arguments are equally silly shows that you're not arguing in good faith.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 7:11 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

No, you weren't subtle, I appreciate you no longer dodging. However, your pretending that these families being evicted isn't a direct consequence of the council vote is silly. It's literally what they were voting on; approval of the project means that this specific group of people lose their homes.


8 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2018 at 7:56 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Grumpy Minority,

Do you believe in America and that we are the land of the free?


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 17, 2018 at 8:20 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Bob, I see you switched accounts now that you need to login. Which is it, Old Mountain View or Bailey Park? Bob or Howard?


6 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 17, 2018 at 10:30 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Both


11 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2018 at 3:36 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Here's another trolley mind game, since you seem set on viewing the world through that lens.

A non-profit organization has been preparing hundreds of meals each week, providing them for free to needy people, including many who are homeless. A county inspector ordered them to close their kitchen because it did not meet standards for commercial kitchens. That led to the organization not being able to prepare meals for homeless people. According to your silly trolley games, the county inspector chose to deny meals to the homeless.

I don't think that's what happened at all. But you're free to continue over-simplifying everything in order to maintain your supposed moral high ground.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 18, 2018 at 3:51 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

In your analogy, the kitchen was shut down for health and safety reasons. If they shut it down to build a Michelin star restaurant, that'd be closer to the situation facing us. You really have to go through some mental gymnastics here to convince yourself City Council isn't responsible for their actions.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2018 at 7:32 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

What I find very humorous:

This kind of housing is suffering from the biggest loss of value at this time all you have to do is read this article about single family homes (Web Link)

Specifically it states:

“Each new housing data point is worse than the last, and they are prompting a leading industry analyst to say the market is in a correction.

Single-family housing starts fell more than 13 percent last month from a year earlier, according to the U.S. Census. Building permits, an indicator of future construction, were down nearly 2 percent.

This followed a sharp drop in homebuilder sentiment to the lowest level in more than three years, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

“I definitely think we’re in a correction,” said John Burns, CEO of John Burns Real Estate Consulting. “Sales, according to our survey last month, were down 19 percent year over year. ... I would call that a correction.”

Burns points to higher mortgage rates, along with the surge in home prices over the last few years, as the culprit. Mortgage rates are a full percentage point higher now than a year ago. Half of Americans can only afford a $230,000 mortgage, according to Burns, and the builders in good locations just can’t build at that price. Eleven of the top 19 builders have an average sales price above $400,000.

“The rise in mortgage rates has really been a double whammy for them,” Burns said. “A lot of the focus has been on the first-time buyer who now can afford 7 percent less than they could at the beginning of the year just due to mortgage rates and home prices even worse than that.”

Builders cannot hit the lower prices because of higher costs for land, labor and materials. While they might be able to build cheaper homes farther outside major metropolitan areas, doing so is risky, given that demand there is so weak.

“As long as builders remain concerned about buyer demand, single-family starts are likely to decline as builders adjust production accordingly,” said Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com. “Rising home prices and mortgage rates have created high hurdles for homebuyers, while cost increases have made it difficult for builders to deliver homes at the most in-demand price points.”

Strong demand for rentals
Multifamily housing starts, meanwhile, surged 20 percent last month compared with November 2017. While this monthly reading tends to be volatile, it indicates that the rental market will remain strong for the foreseeable future.

“Bottom line, the single-family figures confirm again the slowdown in the pace of transactions while multifamily reflects the still solid demand for rentals,” said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group.

Adding to the frustration in the housing market is a stagnation among sellers. While supply is rising slowly because sales are slowing, there are still few new listings coming onto the market. Current homeowners either can’t afford a new home or don’t want to pay a higher mortgage interest rate on a new home. This is hitting homebuilders as well.

“A lot of them build move-up homes, and we think about a quarter of move-up demand is just not going to move because people have a 3.5 percent fixed-rate mortgage, and that’s a painful thing to give up,” Burns said.

The average rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage is hovering around 5 percent.

While homebuilders are still not ramping up entry-level supply, they are starting to cut prices.

A new survey from the NAHB, which has yet to be released, found 41 percent of builders reported reducing prices as a sales incentive for July through October, up from 26 percent a year earlier.”

Talking about the worst time to build this kind of housing. CNBC reports indicate that Multifamily housing is a much wiser investment found here (Web Link)

Specifically:

“U.S. homebuilding rose in October amid a rebound in multifamily housing projects, but construction of single-family homes fell for a second straight month, suggesting the housing market remained mired in weakness as mortgage rates march higher.

Other details of the report published by the Commerce Department on Tuesday were also soft. Building permits declined last month and homebuilding completions were the fewest in a year. Housing starts increased 1.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.228 million units last month.

Data for September was revised to show starts dropping to a rate of 1.210 million units instead of the previously reported pace of 1.201 million units.

Building permits slipped 0.6 percent to a rate of 1.263 million units in October. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast housing starts rising to a pace of 1.225 million units last month.

The housing market is being hobbled by rising borrowing costs as well as land and labor shortages, which have led to tight inventories and higher house prices. This is making home buying unaffordable for many workers as wage growth has lagged.

The 30-year fixed mortgage rate is hovering at a seven-year high of 4.94 percent, according to data from mortgage finance agency Freddie Mac. Wages rose 3.1 percent in October from a year ago, trailing house price inflation of about 5.5 percent.

Residential investment contracted in the first nine months of the year and housing is likely to remain a drag on economic growth in the fourth quarter. Economists expect housing activity to remain weak through the first half of 2019.

U.S. financial markets were little moved by Tuesday’s housing starts data.

Single-family homebuilding stalls
Single-family homebuilding, which accounts for the largest share of the housing market, dropped 1.8 percent to a rate of 865,000 units in October after declining in September.

Single-family homebuilding has lost momentum since hitting a pace of 948,000 units last November, which was the strongest in more than 10 years.

A survey on Monday showed confidence among single-family homebuilders dropped to a more than two-year low in November, with builders reporting that “customers are taking a pause due to concerns over rising interest rates and home prices.”

Single-family starts in the South, which accounts for the bulk of homebuilding, fell 4.0 percent last month. Single-family homebuilding jumped 14.8 percent in the Northeast and fell 2.0 percent in the West. Groundbreaking activity on single-family homes dropped 1.6 percent in the Midwest.

Permits to build single-family homes fell 0.6 percent in October to a pace of 849,000 units. These permits remain below the level of single-family starts, suggesting limited scope for a strong pickup in homebuilding.

Starts for the volatile multifamily housing segment surged 10.3 percent to a rate of 363,000 units in October. Permits for the construction of multifamily homes fell 0.5 percent to a pace of 414,000 units.

Tuesday’s data also suggested that housing supply is likely to remain tight in the near term. Homebuilding completions in October fell 3.3 percent to a rate of 1.111 million units, the lowest level since September 2017.

Realtors estimate that housing starts and completion rates need to be in a range of 1.5 million to 1.6 million units per month to plug the inventory gap.

The stock of housing under construction rose 0.5 percent to a more than 11-year high of 1.137 million units last month. But the multifamily homes segment made up just over half of housing inventory under construction last month.”

Again, the private housing market doesn’t seem to know anything regarding REAL economics.


3 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2018 at 10:26 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

So in the case of shutting down the kitchen, you can see beyond the silly trolley game and you can recognize issues beyond the needs of the hungry homeless people. But in the case of approving this redevelopment project, you cannot see beyond the silly trolley game, and you cannot recognize issues beyond the needs of the poor tenants.

Why is that?


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 18, 2018 at 10:33 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

I already explained how your analogy was inadequate. If you give me a compelling reason besides "landowners wanted more money" I'm all ears. If the city shut down the apartment complex because it was unsafe to live in, it certainly would have been in the article. You're really trying to contort yourself into some justification without having to actually say it.


9 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Why do the property owners have to provide anyone with a reason for what they do with their property? Maybe they want more money. Maybe their feelings were hurt by people like you calling them "greedy landlords". Maybe they decided that renting property was against their religion and they should wash their hands of the whole business. That's their right: "In a 4-3 vote, council members approved the project based primarily on the rights of the owner to replace the apartments and its general compliance with city rules."

Just like it would be the right of a soup kitchen to sell its property to a gourmet restaurant.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 19, 2018 at 2:50 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

You seem to be confused about what I'm arguing. It's well within the rights of the landlord and the power of the council to evict these families from their homes. It's also undeniable that these are active choices being made by them that they bear responsibility for. Which goes to the point I've made over and over again: when the landlord's bottom line conflicts with the interests of our community, dollars win out. I don't think you even disagree with that, as far as I can tell.

I don't really care about this as part of my argument, but I need to correct you on your false statement: the project wasn't compliant with zoning and was requesting variances.


5 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm

Darin is a registered user.

I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't say what variances were requested. I was just quoting the original MV Voice article: "In a 4-3 vote, council members approved the project based primarily on the rights of the owner to replace the apartments and its general compliance with city rules."

You seem to think that vague "interests of our community" should override a property owner's decisions on what to do with his/her property. If the council passes laws that implement such "interests", then fine. But when a proposal is "generally compliant" with the existing laws, rules, and regulations, then denying it is an arbitrary abuse of power.

And if the project is requesting variances, then the council could push back and deny those variances. The fact that they didn't push back indicates to me that they thought that the variances improved the project, when compared with a 100% no-variances-required version of the project. But that's a different decision than approving the project as a whole.


4 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 19, 2018 at 3:52 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Businessman your Right!!
Since I sold all my property in Mountain View and bought in non-rent controlled properties in top rated Bay Area cities, I've been raising rents because no one wants to buy or can afford to buy. For a mere $750,000 investment property I'm earning $3800 - $4000/month now. I bought another 12 pack of them this year!! Landlord wins in this market!

I only feel sorry for those mountain View Landlords stuck under rent control earning half of this.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 19, 2018 at 4:43 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Just to be clear, you don't disagree with my argument, right? It's well within the rights of the landlord and the power of the council to evict these families from their homes. It's also undeniable that these are active choices being made by them that they bear responsibility for. Which goes to the point I've made over and over again: when the landlord's bottom line conflicts with the interests of our community, dollars win out. You mostly just seem to be concerned with my pointing out these facts?


3 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

Which argument? The argument that the landlord decided to evict the tenants, and the council decided to evict the tenants? That argument is absurd.

If I decide to remodel my kitchen, then I will be unable to use my kitchen for days, perhaps weeks. But I did not decide to block access to my kitchen. I decided to remodel it.

If the city decides to repair underground utilities, then the workers will need to dig up the road to access the utilities. But the city did not decide to dig up the road. The city decided to repair underground utilities.

You seem to have conflated the purpose of the decision with specific consequences of the decision.


4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Wait, you think the landlords didn't decide to evict these families? They just happened to deliver them eviction notices, accidentally? You are really contorting yourself into a position where, somehow, landlord and council bears no responsibility for these families losing their homes, when the evictions are a direct result of their actions. Have we stumbled into some new school of philosophy?


9 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 20, 2018 at 1:52 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Grump Minority,

Is it that hard for you to understand that sometimes the usefulness of something expires? There are 2 things going on here, causing this expiration to occur and is what I would refer to as a "Perfect Storm" causing these units and many more to be torn down.

The first thing is the quality of construction on these buildings during the 1950's and 1960's was only designed for 40 years of service life. These buildings are 60 and 70 years old now and are more expensive to retrofit than to tear down and rebuild new construction. Also, the maintenance costs to maintain them at "rental standards" are catching up to these owners right now making it very expensive and unmanageable to maintain.

The second thing is that Rent control worked in the 1970's and 1980's because there was more vacant land around and the land back then was only valuable because there was a building on it generating income. Therefore, it made no sense to tear it down and to stay in business even with rent control.

Today is much different because the land is actually more valuable with the buildings torn down and the land vacant because of the replacement possibilities are worth so much more like $1,500,000 row houses.

The voters and the proponents of Measure V rent control should have known this before implementing rent control under these conditions. This obviously was an emotional decision and certainly not a calculated one by the voters. It was and is a big mistake for affordable housing advocates! It causes the destruction of affordable units with no replacement of them.

The landlords are just dealing with the reality they have been dealt and this problem of tearing down rental units falls on the shoulders of the voters and the voters alone.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 20, 2018 at 2:33 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

What do you think, Darin? Going to push back as hard on Bob/Howard claiming that Mountain View voters in 2016 are solely responsible for these families losing their homes? I'm curious what your new philosophy yields here.


11 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2018 at 2:49 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

No, that is not what I wrote. You seem determined to turn everything anyone writes into a strawman. But for the record, I think Howard's most recent post in this thread has more merit than any of yours.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 20, 2018 at 2:57 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

Imagine my shock! City Council and landlords, blameless in their action to approve the project and evict these families, yet you approve of this with regards to Mountain View voters: "this problem of tearing down rental units falls on the shoulders of the voters and the voters alone." What wonders you can contort yourself into.


13 people like this
Posted by Howard
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 20, 2018 at 3:18 pm

Howard is a registered user.

Grumpy Minority,

Why do you think the property owners should be responsible for this alone? This is a social problem that needs to be paid for by everyone. Maybe you believe someone else should just do it with their money so you don't have to pay for it?

Do you think doctors are responsible for cancer in our society and the cost to cure it should be paid by the doctors only?

When will you understand that this is a regional societal problem that needs everyone to pay for it to get it solved or it will continue as it is. The cost of this is huge and to put it solely on the landlord's is ridiculous and not possible.


3 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 20, 2018 at 4:26 pm

Darin is a registered user.

@Grumpy Minority

No, that is not what I wrote. You seem determined to turn everything anyone writes into a strawman.


8 people like this
Posted by Grumpy Minority
a resident of Castro City
on Dec 20, 2018 at 5:16 pm

Grumpy Minority is a registered user.

I asked you what you thought about Howard's comment and then quoted his comment. Pointing out the text of his post isn't a strawman, dude.


3 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2018 at 12:16 pm

Darin is a registered user.

"Apparently I was too subtle for you. I reject all three of the arguments because they reduce complicated situations to silly trolley mind games."


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Why is it becoming increasingly impossible to open a restaurant on the Peninsula?
By Elena Kadvany | 27 comments | 4,742 views

Premarital, Women Over 50 Do Get Married
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,186 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 2 comments | 2,037 views

Natural Wines?
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,866 views

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now