|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View City Council did it again: At its April 3 meeting, it sadly approved the demolition of 59 apartments located at 2310 Rock St. so that 55 townhomes can be built and sold for about $1.5 million each. On March 26, the council approved the demolition of 33 apartments at 1950 Montecito Ave. And at its Dec. 11 meeting, council members approved the demolition of 20 apartments at 2005 Rock St.
In less than four months the City Council has approved the demolition of 112 apartments, displacing dozens and dozens of low-income families that will not be able to buy the $1.5 million townhouses that will be built in the place that has been their home for many years.
Under the argument that landlords have the right to get out of the rental business if they so desire — and that the demolition projects are in full compliance with the city of Mountain View zoning and building codes and therefore its only option is to approve them — the council is making the already horrible housing crisis worse. As a result, low-income families are being displaced and pushed out of the city that has been their home for many years, the city where they work and where their children were born, go to school and have all their friends and many relatives.
Council member Lucas Ramirez was right when he brought up on April 3 the need to “identify a policy solution to mitigate this impact.” Council member Chris Clark was also right about the “need to fundamentally change the rules.” But they need to start working on it now instead of just talking about the need for change. All the council members have the moral obligation to explore and identify now what can be done.
If the current zoning and building codes in the city books prevent the council from denying approval of demolition projects as it says, then those zoning and building codes should be changed or updated now according to the current socio-economic realities and needs of our city. Don’t point at the city’s rent control law (Measure V) as the culprit behind the demolition projects you have approved.
Councilman John McAlister was wrong when he said April 3 that “rent control devalues a person’s property, and if someone wants to buy it they can’t get more than a 3 percent increase.” The fact is they can get authorization to get much more than 3 percent if they present legitimate petitions to the Rental Housing Committee.
Council members, be brave and start working on those changes now if you really care and believe in the diversity of Mountain View. If you do so, it will raise Mountain View’s status as a “human rights city” and its “diversity flags.” If you don’t, and instead keep doing what you did on Dec. 11, March 26, and April 3, you are causing a perfect storm of demolition approvals. And don’t blame it on the city’s rent control law or start thinking and talking about abolishing it in 2020. If you do, you will be the opposite of brave and will become the greedy landlords’ accomplices to the detriment of Mountain View’s diversity, values, and housing justice. You will be raising the flags of hypocrisy and inhumanity.
Job Lopez is an advocate for housing justice who lives in Mountain View.
What a disgraceful rantings from a person who is on a 2 year probation, who tried to silence the political free speech of a city council candidate.
Link here,
https://padailypost.com/2019/03/21/rent-control-activist-gets-probation-for-vandalizing-campaign-sign/
more news about Job Lopez
“Job Lopez was arrested outside the Video Cassette Outlet adult bookstore on suspicion of soliciting sex from a male undercover officer.”
https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Justices-Make-It-Easier-to-Prove-Illegal-Stings-2991766.php
Council members should be warned about Job Lopez and take notice he is guilty as charged, and notice his tone on how he speaks towards the council. IMHO, he should be banned from getting anywhere near where council members gather for meetings for your own safety.
Job Lopez, IMHO, has no moral high grounds to speak on this issue in our city. Why would the Voice even give him space to write this rant.
In the USA, a core difference that separates us from other countries is our property rights. A private property owner has legal rights, and people like JOB LOPEZ and LENNY SIEGEL only want to take away their rights and devalue their property without the property owner from being compensated for their loss.
Everything the city does to increase any and all fees on developers will only be passed onto the new buyers in an increased price on the sale price.
Council HAS TO respect and protect property owners rights!
We have FAR more displacement of people in our city when we have recessions. Why is there no outrage when employers have to lay of thousands of people, who will not be able to find new jobs and will then be forced to move out the area. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! DISPLACEMENT will happen again in far more numbers than what is going on with these few redevelopment properties.
I strongly support those private property owners who choose to go out of the rental business and to sell their property to who ever they want.
Posted by Jane
“What a disgraceful rantings from a person who is on a 2 year probation, who tried to silence the political free speech of a city council candidate.”
Jane, he was not convicted of a civil infraction. He plead No-Contest. However, that never removes his right to his First amendment expression. Just like yourself by posting your comments here. You also said:
“Council HAS TO respect and protect property owners rights!”
They can only act within the State laws. They cannot advocate for private interests under their own code of conduct and the political reform laws that were passed since 1974 which in effect bars them from being advocates for private interests. The City code of Conduct found here (https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=11671) and the state laws described here (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/the-law/the-political-reform-act.html). In effect you are promoting violations of the code of conduct and the state laws.
As long as the housing crisis is in effect, the state can and does force inclusionary housing for every project since January 1, 2019. The law is found here (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65863.) and it is in the GOVERNMENT CODE: TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 – 66499.58]: DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 – 66210] : CHAPTER 4. Zoning Regulations [65800 – 65912]: ARTICLE 2. Adoption of Regulations [65850 – 65863.13] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1880. )
Under new state laws called “No NET-LOSS”, the affordable units being removed by any project must be replaced by an equal amount of units in the City within 6 months of the project approval of the City. If the City fails to so, the residents of the affordable units can go to state court to have the project stopped because the City will violate the new law enforceable since Jan 1 2019. Here is the law:
“65863. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). AT NO TIME, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (C), SHALL A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY BY ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR OTHER ACTION PERMIT OR CAUSE ITS INVENTORY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR LOWER AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.”
Here is some real information from the Association of Bay Area Governments.
The 2007-2014 housing report stated that:
Mountain View had a need of Very Low housing of 571 but only had 237 which reached 42%, Low Income Housing 388 but only had 28 which reached 7%, Moderate Income housing of 488 but only had 4 which reached 1%, Above Moderate housing of 1,152 but had 2,387 or reached 207% of the needs.
Compare with current record:
Mountain View had a need of Very Low Income Housing of 814 but has only provided 120 which reached 15%, Low Income housing of 492 but has only provided 135 which reached 27%, Moderate income housing of 527 but provided no additional housing which reached 0%, and Above Moderate housing of 1,093 but has 2,004 which reached 183%.
That would seem to apply directly to the City of Mountain View. Since this project is not in any way addressing the affordable housing unmet needs of the City. It also applies that:
(b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, REDUCE, OR REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO, OR ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL AT, A LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF SUBDIVISION (G), UNLESS THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
(A) THE REDUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL.”
The City has not even provided such information. The plan is completely lacking this requirement under the state laws. You simply do not address that this is specifically required from the City. It also went on to say:
(2) If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL WITH FEWER UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY THAN IDENTIFIED IN THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THAT PARCEL, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REMAINING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. “
Again this was not provided by the City in any way. The City must document how the loss of the affordable housing units are to be replaced in the City in order to move forward. Without such allocation in a “parallel” project, this project is in violation of the state laws. It goes on to say:
“(c) (1) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, THE JURISDICTION MAY REDUCE THE DENSITY ON THAT PARCEL IF IT IDENTIFIES SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL, ADEQUATE, AND AVAILABLE SITES WITH AN EQUAL OR GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE JURISDICTION SO THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY.”
The City has not even bothered to address this legal requirement as well. So the City is in further violation of the state laws. Unless the City again provides a “parallel” project that will replace the affordable units being eliminated by this new plan. It goes on to say:
“(2) If the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel and the jurisdiction does not find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level, THE JURISDICTION SHALL WITHIN 180 DAYS IDENTIFY AND MAKE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL ADEQUATE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL AUTHORIZE A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO DISAPPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE BASIS THAT APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH.”
If the City does not provide replacement of the affordable housing units to be built in 6 months, the approval of this project is illegal. Of course the city has no plans moving forward to address the replacement of the lost affordable housing units. Thus the City will violate this provision of the law. It went on to say:
(d) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER LAW THAT MAY RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.
(e) This section requires that a city, county, or city and county be solely responsible for compliance with this section, unless a project applicant requests in his or her initial application, as submitted, a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. IN THAT CASE, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAY REQUIRE THE PROJECT APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION. THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE APPLICATION BEING DEEMED COMPLETE OR BEING ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY.”
Yes that means that the City was given some latitude as to whether the plan will comply with the law. But a resident can and should take action in place of the City to ensure their 14th Amendment rights and California equal protection of the STATE laws are provided. In that case, the complaint should be filed with the STATE courts and NOT the County Courts. The County has a record of not enforcing state laws adequately, look at the TRO that was enforces regarding the CSFRA when later the court determined that there was no legal basis to challenge it and eventually revoked it.
And the City cannot outsource affordable units under the law. In effect the City is already barred from removing affordable housing and the courts can stop the City from moving forward on those plans.
Job — please leave our town. You lost all credibility when you brazenly defaced signs of people you disagree with, and no one should take you seriously.
You should be in jail, not on probation.
In response to Jane you said:
“more news about Job Lopez
“Job Lopez was arrested outside the Video Cassette Outlet adult bookstore on suspicion of soliciting sex from a male undercover officer.”
But the story you linked to stated this:
“The California Supreme Court made it easier yesterday for people to prove they have been illegally targeted by police, ruling in support of gay men who were arrested in a Mountain View police sting operation.
Dennis Baluyut and Job Lopez had filed a 1993 discrimination suit against Santa Clara County after they had been arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex as a result of a decoy operation run by Mountain View police.
By a unanimous vote, the court said the men could prove that they were victims of discrimination by relying on arrest records showing that gay men had been unfairly singled out.
In this case, the men brought forth statistics showing that during a two-year period before their suit, the police made 10 arrests, all of them men accused of soliciting sex from other men.
However, the court stopped short of deciding whether the Mountain View sting operation illegally discriminated against gays because the charges have been dismissed against Baluyut and Lopez.
The police had argued the men bringing the suit had a greater burden of proof and had to show that officers had specifically intended to punish gays. But the court said that those claiming discriminatory prosecution do not have to go that far.
There is nothing in other court rulings on discrimination that supports “the imposition of this additional burden,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in the court’s decision.
Baxter said that those arrested can show that police are illegally discriminating against them “when there is no legitimate law enforcement purpose for singling out those persons for prosecution.”
Baluyut and Lopez filed their suit after they were arrested outside the Video Cassette Outlet adult bookstore on suspicion of soliciting sex from a male undercover officer.
In the sting operation, the officer would engage in small talk with a man. Once the man tried to pick up the decoy by suggesting they go to the decoy’s car or to a public place, the officer would arrest the man for soliciting lewd conduct in a public place.
In support of their suit, the men said the modus operandi of the decoy officers was typical of a type of “cruising” by gay men.
Neighbors had complained about sexual acts in the bookstore’s parking lot, but there was no mention that the offenders were gay. In addition, the two men noted that most of the bookstore’s material catered to heterosexuals.”
I guess it must be that you have some issue with people that “could” be homosexual. The fact was this case shows that the Mountain View police have a agenda against Job Lopez because of that Supreme Court Decision.
I am surprised that this was not brought up for arguing against the current complaint. The City had an interest to punish Job Lopez for his success to prove the improper actions done by the City of Mountain View Police.
WOW!
BM, you miss the point on Job Lopez, it is not about sexual orientation, it is about undeniable immoral and criminal activity (defacing and stealing Mr. Ink’s sign) and being arrested for offering to pay someone for sexual services which is directly related to human trafficking, he got off on a technicality in that case, but he was at that video store soliciting an under cover officer. Now he smugly talks down on the City Council and private property owners as if he has some moral authority or credibility. Get a clue, he has neither, Mountain View would be better off without him. I mean him specifically only, don’t care what people do in their spare time as long as they are abiding by the laws of the land and not infringing upon others life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Wht you don’t understand is that the City probably framed him.
By providing questionable evidence to the court.
The footage was not validated in the court, thus any video evidence was most likely synthetic. The City targeted him to protect their interests regarding the fact it was FORCED into rent control becasue of the CHARTER of the City.
In fact the video was made by a private individual, most likely because they wanted to discredit him.
Unfortunately, with regards to the current situation, Job decided to plead No Contest.
In effect the City had it after him for more than 20 years. It was completely humiliated in the California Supreme Court.
Simply put, you created the perfect martyr by going after the one that made the City look like fools.
I don’t know what video you looked at, but, the video in question provided by the homeowner is crystal clear, it has full clarity and continuity, even a watermark showing the system name, no doubt who perpetrated this crime, someone who thinks he’s better than the rest of us. He’s an embarrassment to his friends who also mean well, but do not stoop to these tactics to promote their views.
https://youtu.be/W71hUfnoZvE
A homeowner video cannot be used as evidence if it cannot be proven to be authentic.
The City has the resources to have a mask made to impersonate Job.
The only evidence was the video, which is poor quality from what I saw.
The City Police Department was the one that accused him.
So until the City can provide the public independent proof of the authenticity, I simply will justly question it.
It’s telling that the Voice gave this guy a guest opinion space given his past. I guess they’re trying to rehabilitate his sordid reputation. As for the rent control fans, is Job Lopez your best spokesman?
Gary,
My observation of the video indicated 4 things.
The first was the absolute loss of any facial expression of the person being videoed. It was as if the face was frozen, or had no facial muscules working. The only thing that can cause this is a stroke, or injections of butox. This was very suspcious.
The fact that the skin appears almost perectly smooth and lacking color, not one indication of wrinkles in the video also seemed to indicate a serious problem. If you look at any video of Job in the last year, his face is significantly wrinkled and almost permantly tanned. This made me more suspicious of the video.
The next issue was that the person was wearing sunglasses at night. My prior education in Medicine (I was studying Occupational Therapy at San Jose State) It is well known that at 70 years old night blindness is normal you can see evidence right here (https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/blinded-by-the-night) and (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/health/13brody.html). This was a clear problem with the video, a person at 70 years old at night wearing sunglasses can virtually blind them.
Finally the fact that the face seemed to glow in the dark. This makes me wonder if the face was made of a synthetic material that is flourescent. This in compination with the above made me think of the mask worn by the killer in Friday the 13th, which was of William Shatner.
Currently it is very easy to take an existing video and use software to make a 3d printout of a face. The fact is this looks more and more like a mask given the examination I described.
So, why did the City Police department identify Job? Becasue it had a vendetta against him since the 1996 case, where the police used the same illegal entrapment practices that was used for decades against homosexuals you can read about here (http://peninsulapress.com/2018/12/19/how-california-police-departments-targeted-gay-men-in-sting-operations-for-a-century/).
Now I cannot dedicate myself to substitute for Job because I am employed as a travelling subject matter expert. I will agree that Job does not have the same information that others can represent. But he still has a First Amendment right to discuss the subject. THe opposition can also do so. And often does. But a lot of deceptive information has been used by them, like claiming that rent control was inconstitutional becasue it was a TAKING. That was false and there was plenty of information to prove it.
Also the opposition tries to say that rent control is required to solve homelssness or address the cost of housing for the entire market. As long as Costa Hawkins is the law, that is impossible. The expectation that if rent control cannot solve these problems justifies no rent control is a false argument.
Finally, the false claims regarding the cost to the City general funds are proven false as well. The City general fund was charged some money to start the program. But it has been paid back already so that the City funds are not touched.
In effect, the opposition to affordable housing has used deceptive tactics. And I have presented information that can damaged the integrity of the claims made by those who have posted here.
I expect some kind of evidence to prove my observations are innaccurate. That is all