Council reluctantly approves razing of 116 rent-controlled apartments | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council reluctantly approves razing of 116 rent-controlled apartments

Original post made on May 20, 2020

More of Mountain View's older, rent-controlled apartments will be demolished to make way for new ownership housing, after the Mountain View City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday to approve a rowhouse redevelopment along Middlefield Road.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 12:50 PM

Comments (40)

16 people like this
Posted by Cog
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2020 at 1:35 pm

The blame begins with the city council, not sure why they are looking around to find someone else.


26 people like this
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on May 20, 2020 at 2:13 pm

This article is almost a carbon copy of the December 2018 article about Rock Street.... over two years ago!

Same old "our hands are tied"/"we don't have enough local control" complaints, same empty pledges to tackle displacement or calls "for some kind of future restrictions on developments that caused a net loss of housing".

Over two years later and during a historic health emergency, the City still claims to be powerless...

Clearly, "When there is no will, there is no way"


51 people like this
Posted by "Unintended consequences?!?"
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 20, 2020 at 2:20 pm

'landlords are seeking to exit the rental market because of limits set by the city's rent control law. . . Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga referred to "unintended consequences" that have resulted in a spree of redevelopment projects.'

Nonsense. That phrase is a politician's throwaway excuse. Owners exiting the rental market -- and redevelopment that reduces total rental housing -- are normal and utterly predictable effects of rent control. It has happened countless times before, and everyone concerned with the topic either knows it full well, or hasn't done their homework.

When an effect is entirely predictable with a long-demonstrated history, calling it "unintended" is misleading.


194 people like this
Posted by Winston C.
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 20, 2020 at 2:32 pm

I wholly welcome ownership housing. Displaced renters are welcome to compete on the buyer's market or move somewhere more affordable. Nothing lasts forever.


20 people like this
Posted by roaksinri
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2020 at 2:32 pm

"Our hands are tied"...Then why was there a vote to "approve" the project? If one opposes the project on general principle, then disallow it. Ramirez seems to want it both ways-" I don't like it, but I don't want these rich developers (who might donate to my future campaigns for office) to be mad at me if I come across too strong. I know! I'll blame "other forces" that have tied our hands. That's the ticket!" And the 5 Yea votes stay quiet so as not to attract attention, preferring to attract campaign contributions from rich developers- as for the displaced people- Let them eat cake!.....


21 people like this
Posted by drslb
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 20, 2020 at 3:05 pm

So who are going to provide the services for all the tech people in the city. I guess robot police, fire departments, robot teachers and nurses, robot plumbers, robot gardeners and robots in nursing homes. Will be perfect for next pandemic.


4 people like this
Posted by roaksinri
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2020 at 3:19 pm

Hey drslb- that explains the robot traveling the sidewalks at Eagle Park- it is in training for the eventual takeover. Self Driving cars, robot servants, the future is here! Where will it lead? Recommended viewing: 2001:A Space Odyssey, West World, and Ex Machina....


13 people like this
Posted by Rex Major Res
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 20, 2020 at 3:44 pm

Wasnt there a recent development in Los Altos whete the city was trying to block redevelopment. They got sued and lost. The loose regulations dont allow for city councils to take a harder stand if the criteria are met.


181 people like this
Posted by Jake O.
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on May 20, 2020 at 3:46 pm

Having grown up in MV and now a renter, it's sad to see the changes but it is what it is. I know one day I'll be priced out of the area and have to move but it goes against my principles to agree that the local government can tell land owners what they can and cannot build. These land owners are also business owners, if they choose to cash out, that is their choice


26 people like this
Posted by Allie
a resident of Old Mountain View
on May 20, 2020 at 3:57 pm

Disgraceful. Where is human decency, especially at such an already scary and vulnerable time? I'm terrified my building will be next. For those who say , "If you can't afford to compete in the housing market, it's time to move"... I ask you, how easy would it be for you to pick up and move away from what has been your home most of your life, leave family and friends, uproot your children, find a new job??
Mountain View has changed drastically. Gone is the community feel, the celebration of diversity, the tolerance. It is being sold off to the rich, and the City Council either doesn't care or has no backbone. I am so very saddened and, again, terrified by all of this.


8 people like this
Posted by Tina
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2020 at 5:50 pm

Don't worry too much. It's disgusting enough people that they're all leaving for Texas anyway, vulnerable or not.

Who will you be rezoning for when everyone moves to Austin? Gonna year down the houses and rebuild affordable apartments instead?

What are you left with when the market dries up?


21 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2020 at 8:09 pm

No hands were tied. The staff report stated that the Council could reject the project. Two councilmembers voted against approval. Much more rent controlled housing will be lost if tenants get too far behind in rent payments and cannot make them up later. On lawful turnover, the rent can be raised on the unit as high as the market will allow. It is called VACANCY DECONTROL and is a chief source of landlord profit.


18 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 20, 2020 at 8:55 pm

I am going to encourage the State to sue the City for this travesty.

Then new housing state laws are being ignored by the city.

We are going to be sued like Huntington Beach.

And the City is going to lose.

Also the tenants should also sue the City.

Sunnyvale tried the same stunt and caved after they learned they made such a disastrous decision.

This is the City Council trying to attack the City Citizens, plan and simple after Measure D failed.


254 people like this
Posted by comet48
a resident of another community
on May 20, 2020 at 9:07 pm

Rent control - there goes rental properties! What did these fools expect?


281 people like this
Posted by KTT
a resident of North Whisman
on May 20, 2020 at 9:19 pm

Not surprised the redevelopment of housing continues. As long as Measure V- rent control is in place, we will continue to see older properties call it a day.

Housing advocates should embrace this project since homeownership is the medicine to true housing stability. You can’t keep renters as renters forever. Eventually people aim for homeownership even though homeownership may be in other areas where renters’ wallets meet reality.

In a time where we’ve seen more apartments get built, this ownership project is a welcome change. Kudos to the city council.


27 people like this
Posted by ex-Hooli person
a resident of Rex Manor
on May 20, 2020 at 10:08 pm

I'm surprised that property owners would willingly exit the residential rental market. Between the resentment of the community and the non-payment of rent, what's not to like? I wish I had more money to invest in toxic, non-performing assets.


17 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 20, 2020 at 10:19 pm

The pro-landlord city council majority has approved some ownership housing in place of rental housing. The Council could have disallowed the projects. Approval is a function mainly of the money to be made in new ownership housing here and the councilmembers going along. The same pro-landlord councilmembers will blame rent control because they oppose rent control. But without rent control, rents would soar and most existing tenants would be priced out and forced to move elsewhere that is less in demand. In any event, the next big item on the rental housing front will be placement of the landlords' sneaky repeal of local rent control on the November ballot. There now is statewide rent control that is a backstop. But it could be repealed or replaced by the state legislature and governor whenever they choose. .


9 people like this
Posted by Lyn
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 21, 2020 at 2:32 am

It is clear that the only concern the Mountain View City Council has is to gain revenue. Mountain View City Council does not care what happens to the middle or lower class people. They have the power to stop the landlords, but they do not. What a sham.


29 people like this
Posted by Rent control is a failure
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 21, 2020 at 7:56 am

If you want to control rent, I suggest you build your own apartments, then you can control rent.

Forcing others to limit their return on their investment is anti capitalistic. It's pure evil communistic. It's like limiting your jeweler how much he can make on his merchandise. Pretty soon we will be having food control, people telling us what we can or cannot eat. See where this is leading?


14 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 21, 2020 at 8:33 am

In response to KTT you said:

“Housing advocates should embrace this project since homeownership is the medicine to true housing stability. You can’t keep renters as renters forever. Eventually people aim for homeownership even though homeownership may be in other areas where renters’ wallets meet reality.”

You are simply wrong in many ways. Home ownership is NOT FEASIBLE for all given the way work requires people to potentially move in as short as 7 years. You simply want to claim that home ownership solves housing. What PROOF do you have? The reality is that we do not have the safe and available land space to build enough NON-Apartments to satisfy the demand of housing. The soil is so polluted, housing is building “clean houses” with air control systems in them because of the TCE problems. NO ONE SHOULD MOVE INTO ANY PLACE WITH THIS INSTALLED. IN FACT THEY SHOULD BE MOVED OUT. NOR can people commit to being in a place for say more than 10 years. You must be a REALTOR trying which that business is hitting one of the worst periods in recent history.

As far as what Rent control is a failure said here:

“If you want to control rent, I suggest you build your own apartments, then you can control rent.”

Not much of a conclusion with no evidence to back it up. You went on to say:

“Forcing others to limit their return on their investment is anti capitalistic. It's pure evil communistic. It's like limiting your jeweler how much he can make on his merchandise. Pretty soon we will be having food control, people telling us what we can or cannot eat. See where this is leading?”

Here we go again with the “anti-communist” argument. It doesn’t fly.

The U.S. Constitution Nor the California Constitution provides REAL private property rights at all. In the Kelo v City of New London case found here (Web Link) of the U.S. Supreme Court said, a government is not liable for transferring ownership of anything to a PRIVATE party. As long as the Government doesn’t take the property, eminent domain doesn’t apply NOR does taking apply.

In reality all people’s claims of private property rights are made by economists, politicians and attorneys that are well aware that the laws don’t work that way. But they want to sell their Services. What you are describing is the return of Feudalism, which the U.S. explicitly abandoned after the AMERICAN REVOLUTION, kinda like the SOVIET REVOLUTION. Same problem, monarchy or elite oligarchy rule on the people.

Again let the lawsuit start.


18 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 21, 2020 at 10:12 am

@Allie

It hasn't been an easy decision to leave, but we just can't afford to live here any longer. We'll miss the people we're leaving behind, but the financial reality is that we can't stay.


4 people like this
Posted by Kimberley
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 22, 2020 at 6:04 pm

I wrote to Margaret Netto, the planner, on two occasions and never received a reply about the development. I had asked her why the city would allow a SMALLER number of homes to be developed along with the destruction of 54, yes FIFTY FOUR heritage trees. Summerhill Homes are wreaking economic and environmental war against the citizens of Mountain View. I think we should oppose them. Apart from the highly distasteful ousting of low income residents, has anybody calculated the environmental cost of sending 116 homes to a landfill, not to mention the energy and materials to build 115 McMansions? It is heartbreaking to witness this loss of affordable homes, trees, wildlife and character. The citizens of Mountain View overturned a council decision to remove vehicles from the streets. I think citizen power should be enlisted to oppose this development. I wonder if we have any redress at the state level? At the very least we should insist on a full environmental impact statement that includes the loss of biodiversity. Finally, if the city were truly apologetic, maybe they should make an offer to buy the apartment complex? As residents leave the homes could be offered to essential services workers. There is an alternative solution to this act of environmental and economic vandalism.


12 people like this
Posted by Stable Genius
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 22, 2020 at 6:18 pm

It is probably too late to object to this development but you might ask candidates for city council where they stand on this kind of tradeoff. As to living in RVs on MV streets, that will be on the November ballot in MV as a REFERENDUM. It has not been decided by voters. More specifically, voters will be asked to approve or reject an ordinance passed by the city council last year banning RV overnight parking on most streets (I think it was any street under 40 feet in width but correct me if wrong). Opponents secured enough voter signatures to suspend the ordinance pending a vote in an election. The City Council then placed the question on the November 3, 2020 ballot.


10 people like this
Posted by Lyn
a resident of Shoreline West
on May 23, 2020 at 11:06 am

People to organize, and VOTE these bad City Council Members, OUT!


Like this comment
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 26, 2020 at 3:47 pm

@Kimberley
I'm actually surprised that the new project will have only 1 fewer unit than the existing complex (116 apartments vs 115 row houses). Older complexes do not meet current code requirements. For example, if our complex were being rebuilt, it would need 11-12 additional guest parking spaces to meet code. There is nowhere to put those parking spaces, so a rebuilt complex would necessarily have fewer units.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 27, 2020 at 7:09 am

In response to Darin you said:

“I'm actually surprised that the new project will have only 1 fewer unit than the existing complex (116 apartments vs 115 row houses).”

Yes interesting when there is a no net loss laws regarding developments.

This is proof that the City is collaborating with the conspiracy to prevent residential development of affordable housing, even when laws are being made to try to increase it.

None the less, no one should even consider buying them if they have TCE vapor control systems installed. The oonly reason would be because the outdoor air is polluted. NO ONE SHOULD LIVE IN ANY PLACE WITH TCE IN THE AMBIENT AIR.

We should make sure that actually happens, thus killing any incentives to build housing in those areas. In fact it is currently designed by the CARB and the EPA to not monitor the air in the entire valley for TCE levels. The reason, IT COULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE VALLEY TO BE EVACUATED. That is a requirement under the EPA Superfund laws. As far as:

“Older complexes do not meet current code requirements. For example, if our complex were being rebuilt, it would need 11-12 additional guest parking spaces to meet code. There is nowhere to put those parking spaces, so a rebuilt complex would necessarily have fewer units.”

That is only because the engineers haven’t designed the buildings correctly. There can be enough parking but it requires more underground parking thus deeper pits. The problem, that exposes more TCE pollution into the air because the TCE is stronger deeper underground.

The REALITY is that the valley is in fact poisoned, and until it is dealt with, it cannot be used. The EPA does have an actionable plan but it will take 15 to 20 years to complete. But when done, the TCE will have been neutralized forever.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 27, 2020 at 7:09 am

In response to Darin you said:


“I'm actually surprised that the new project will have only 1 fewer unit than the existing complex (116 apartments vs 115 row houses).”

Yes interesting when there is a no net loss laws regarding developments.

This is proof that the City is collaborating with the conspiracy to prevent residential development of affordable housing, even when laws are being made to try to increase it.

None the less, no one should even consider buying them if they have TCE vapor control systems installed. The oonly reason would be because the outdoor air is polluted. NO ONE SHOULD LIVE IN ANY PLACE WITH TCE IN THE AMBIENT AIR.

We should make sure that actually happens, thus killing any incentives to build housing in those areas. In fact it is currently designed by the CARB and the EPA to not monitor the air in the entire valley for TCE levels. The reason, IT COULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE VALLEY TO BE EVACUATED. That is a requirement under the EPA Superfund laws. As far as:

“Older complexes do not meet current code requirements. For example, if our complex were being rebuilt, it would need 11-12 additional guest parking spaces to meet code. There is nowhere to put those parking spaces, so a rebuilt complex would necessarily have fewer units.”

That is only because the engineers haven’t designed the buildings correctly. There can be enough parking but it requires more underground parking thus deeper pits. The problem, that exposes more TCE pollution into the air because the TCE is stronger deeper underground.

The REALITY is that the valley is in fact poisoned, and until it is dealt with, it cannot be used. The EPA does have an actionable plan but it will take 15 to 20 years to complete. But when done, the TCE will have been neutralized forever.


2 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 28, 2020 at 2:51 pm

The Business Man wrote:
> In response to Darin you said:
>
> “[what Darin wrote]”
>
> [what The Business Man wrote]

Please learn to quote others in a way that makes sense. The way you quoted what I wrote indicates that someone wrote it in response to me, not that I wrote it.


Like this comment
Posted by Kimberley
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 28, 2020 at 5:17 pm

I think the parking spot argument is rubbish. I am talking about building smaller homes, not the planned large townhouses for the wealthy. Let’s resist this. It is not too late. Does anybody know who I should contact at the state level or an investigation? Attorney General?


2 people like this
Posted by Kimberley
a resident of Monta Loma
on May 28, 2020 at 5:18 pm

I think the parking spot argument is ridiculous. I am talking about building smaller homes, not the planned large townhouses for the wealthy. Let’s resist this. It is not too late. Does anybody know who I should contact at the state level or an investigation? Attorney General?


10 people like this
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on May 30, 2020 at 8:52 am

This will continue. It is what Mountain View voters voted for. Majority rules. Voters were informed that the rent control ordinance would cause the conversion of naturally affordable rental housing into higher-cost for-sale housing and that's exactly what happened.

The Ellis Act ties the hands of the City Council. They had no choice in the matter. Property owners are not willing to subsidize housing through rent control forever.

However there are positive aspects to the conversion of rental housing to for sale housing as well. The property tax revenue increases greatly. Parcel taxes, including school parcel taxes, are collected for each for-sale unit, instead of one parcel tax for an entire rental apartment complex. Ownership housing is better for the occupants in terms of financial stability, despite the initial cost.

It's surprising that there is no requirement for a percentage of the new for-sale units to be BMR for-sale units. Perhaps Mountain View doesn't require this, and allows the developer to pay in-lieu fees rather than provide inclusionary housing. This is something that the City Council should address.

The reality is that subsidized rental housing should be subsidized by the federal, state, county, and local governments, through tax revenue, and should be income qualified. Rent control ordinances temporarily benefit a few people, often those that could afford market-rate rentals, but eventually the property owners get tired of the subsidies and exit the rental business.

There is no way to fix this problem in Mountain View. The City Council tried to fix it by modifying the rent control ordinance, and it failed by a large margin. The voters have spoken. They want more for-sale housing to replace rental housing.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on May 30, 2020 at 12:00 pm

In response to Tom Halstrom you said:

“This will continue. It is what Mountain View voters voted for. Majority rules. Voters were informed that the rent control ordinance would cause the conversion of naturally affordable rental housing into higher-cost for-sale housing and that's exactly what happened.”

However, the new state laws, namingly no net loss and SB330 says that that is not true. This was going to happen, the loopholes used to manipulate the housing market are being removed. You are saying what the opposition argued, that argument is simply not fact, as you know those consequnces are now being taken away under the laws. You said:

“The Ellis Act ties the hands of the City Council. They had no choice in the matter. Property owners are not willing to subsidize housing through rent control forever.”

The Ellis Act only says one thing, landlords and property owners can sell or go out of business. NOT DICTATE property projects in ANY way. You are making a false claim there You said:

“However there are positive aspects to the conversion of rental housing to for sale housing as well. The property tax revenue increases greatly. Parcel taxes, including school parcel taxes, are collected for each for-sale unit, instead of one parcel tax for an entire rental apartment complex. Ownership housing is better for the occupants in terms of financial stability, despite the initial cost.”

That is an arguments, but again, it is not UNIVERALLY applicable to the ENTIRE housing markets. In fact it would drive prices down if the market was only ownership, because renters would simply not afford the prices, and the market would be forced to lower them. You said:

“It's surprising that there is no requirement for a percentage of the new for-sale units to be BMR for-sale units. Perhaps Mountain View doesn't require this, and allows the developer to pay in-lieu fees rather than provide inclusionary housing. This is something that the City Council should address.”

You are right, the BMR is voluntary in the City is voluntary, but state laws do require mandatory BMR allocation. The City simply has not yet been sued by the state, like it did in Huntington Beach and Sunnyvale to force the laws to be complied with. That is going to eventually happen. You said:

“The reality is that subsidized rental housing should be subsidized by the federal, state, county, and local governments, through tax revenue, and should be income qualified. Rent control ordinances temporarily benefit a few people, often those that could afford market-rate rentals, but eventually the property owners get tired of the subsidies and exit the rental business.”

WRONG, the market needs correcting and market regulations are a tool. The investors had unrealistic expectations of easy profit with no risk. That is not BUSINESS. You said:

“There is no way to fix this problem in Mountain View. The City Council tried to fix it by modifying the rent control ordinance, and it failed by a large margin. The voters have spoken. They want more for-sale housing to replace rental housing.”

A MAJOR FALSE CLAIM. The VOTERS did not make that statement at all. If there were a ballot question that declared this and the voters approved it would your claim be accurate. The VOTERS rejected the City Councils attempts to eliminate rights that the voters wanted citizens of Mountain View to have. Nothing more.

Put a ballot measure up and let’s see what the voters said. You are putting words into others mouths without any proof.


4 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 1, 2020 at 7:05 pm

@Kimberley

You may think the parking spot argument is rubbish or ridiculous, but current city code does require more parking than many older complexes were built with.

But I'm curious about what kind of "smaller homes" you expect developers to build? 1BR condos? Studio condos? Something else? And how much do you expect them to cost? And who do you think would buy them?


2 people like this
Posted by Kimberley
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 1, 2020 at 8:22 pm

I think you are being disingenuous Darin. There is a world of difference between the one and two bedroom small apartments in the current configuration and the 3 bedroom monstrosities that Summerhill homes build for [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
. And have you noticed how when they build garages the new owners don’t use them and end up parking on the street. The current apartments have carports. There are really only two types of people Interested in this. You are either for social justice and affordable housing or, you got lucky and are a wealthy elitist who wants to gentrify their neighborhood and kick the poor people to the curb.


5 people like this
Posted by Darin
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 2, 2020 at 4:18 pm

@Kimberley

I haven't investigated all the new construction in the area, but the one's I've looked at have built a variety of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom townhomes. But even a decades-old townhome in decent condition will sell for more than $1M, which I would expect to provoke more "disrespectful comment or offensive language" about the people who can afford to buy such homes.

A new 1 bedroom condo is going to sell for more than $1M in Mountain View. Each additional bedroom adds a few $100k to the price. That's just the market we're in.

If you want property owners to continue to be landlords, then being a landlord has to remain a financially viable decision. If being a landlord isn't a financially viable decision, then property owners will exit the business. And yes, being a landlord is a business, just like running a grocery store, or running a restaurant, or building homes.

false dilemma /fôls diˈlemə,dīˈlemə/ noun
a fallacy in which a statement falsely claims an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional logically valid option


2 people like this
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 3, 2020 at 9:03 am

roaksinri, you asked about the "Our hands are tied" comment and why there was a vote at all.

The reason is that if a City Council votes to not approve a project that complies with existing zoning, and other state and local laws, the City will be successfully sued by the property owner or other entities. That is why projects that both residents and elected leaders don't like end up getting approved. It would be a disservice for the elected leaders to burden taxpayers with the legal expenses, and fines, that would inevitably occur if they voted down a project simply because they didn't like it.

You saw what happened in Los Altos when the city rejected an SB-35 project. The City Council doesn’t have the power to stop legal projects. In Cupertino, the City approved a 50% BMR project at the site of the old Vallco mall. Some residents sued because they felt that the approval technically should not have been made based on the specifics of the project. The residents lost and the judge was clear: a ministerially approved SB-35 project, even if approved in error, is still considered approved. As a result, Cupertino will be getting 1,201 more Below Market Rate rental apartments if the project is built.

Replacing our current Mountain View City Council with a new City Council won’t solve the problem, you have to change the state laws that allow landlords to exit the rental market and build ownership housing, and that is unlikely. The attempt in 2018 to repeal Costa-Hawkins, which would have allowed rent control on newer buildings, failed by a large margin. Personally I voted for the repeal for three reasons: first because I believe it is unfair to burden owners of older properties with rent control but allow owners of newer buildings to avoid rent control; second, Costa-Hawkins ends up driving up rents because the percentage of affordable apartments keeps declining as property owners of rent-controlled properties exit the rental business; and third, repealing Costa-Hawkins would cause property owners to build more ownership housing and less rental housing, which increases housing equity and stability, and is beneficial to schools, residents, and cities.

If you had a City Council that denied legal projects then the City would be spending a lot more money on legal fees, settlement costs, and fines, making things even worse because there would be less money for subsidized housing.


2 people like this
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 3, 2020 at 9:04 am

Drslb, you asked “who are going to provide the services for all the tech people in the city.” The same people that do so now. Police, firefighters, nurses are all well paid and will continue to live in the areas where they can afford to buy homes. These additional 116 homes will be purchased not only by tech workers but by other workers as well.

It’s the low-paid workers that will be forced out, but that was the anticipated outcome when rent-control was voted in. It was NOT an unintended consequence. And as rents continue to fall in this area, you’ll see more such for-sale housing projects regardless of rent control laws.

And as an aside, as remote working becomes the norm, a lot of those tech workers will no longer be around to drive up the cost of housing. Zuckerberg recently stated that 75% of Facebook employees would be interested in leaving the area and working remotely. While that number is almost certainly inflated, the reality is that a lot of tech workers will relocate to areas with less expensive housing. This will lead to a demand for more service workers in those areas


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 3, 2020 at 9:05 am

KTT, you wrote “Housing advocates should embrace this project since homeownership is the medicine to true housing stability. You can’t keep renters as renters forever. Eventually people aim for homeownership even though homeownership may be in other areas where renters’ wallets meet reality.”

You are spot-on. The only thing about that project that is dismaying is that there are no BMR for-sale units. That’s something that the City Council can fix. Requiring 15% inclusionary BMR housing on new projects, instead of allowing the property owner to pay an in-lieu affordable housing fee, would be something that most residents would support.


2 people like this
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 3, 2020 at 9:30 am

Darin, if there were subsidies by the state, county, and federal government, developers might be willing to build more smaller units as opposed to the types of units they are building now.

The demand for the larger units is from families with children, and while they can't really be characterized as "wealthy," if they were wealthy they'd be buying in Los Altos Hills or Atherton, not Mountain View, they would have to have a good income to afford these townhomes.

I think of my cousin's family who bought a 3BR townhome in Mountain View, he's a police officer with a $170,000 salary and she's a nurse with a $150,000 salary. Not considered wealthy in this area, but stable good-paying, union jobs. They'd have loved to move to a single family home in Palo Alto but they could not afford it, to afford a single family home they'd have had to move to Morgan Hill, Mountain House, or Tracy. That's the type of family these new 116 for-sale units in Mountain View will attract.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Halstrom
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Jun 3, 2020 at 9:50 am

Kimberley, you wrote: "Let’s resist this. It is not too late. Does anybody know who I should contact at the state level or an investigation? Attorney General?"

Nothing illegal was done here. In fact, it would have been illegal for the City Council to have not approved a project that did not violate zoning, the General Plan, or any state laws.

What you need to do is to work to repeal the Ellis Act. That is the law that requires cities to allow property owners to exit the rental business and build for-sale housing.

The Ellis Act is the root cause of the loss of affordable housing in cities with rent control. Property owners that cannot afford to keep up the property and continue to subsidize their tenants eventually decide to exit the rental business. As a result the housing stocks for renters decreases, causing rents to go up because only the non-rent-controlled building remain. This is what has happened repeatedly in Mountain View since rent control was enacted, and everyone knew that it would happen because it always happens when rent control is enacted. There’s a lag between when rent control laws are put in place and the Ellis Act conversions begin, and it depends on how strict the rent control laws are, but inevitably the conversions occur. However it should be pointed out that in the current environment, of plunging rents, you’ll see more Ellis Act conversions regardless of whether a city has rent control or not.

To repeal the Ellis Act, simply start by collecting a million signatures to get the repeal on the 2022 ballot and then finance a campaign to convince voters to repeal it. You should be able to achieve this with about $25 million.

There have been laws passed to eat away around the fringes of the Ellis Act, like SB-330, but they can't do enough to stop the removal of rent-controlled housing.


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

Email:


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.


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

Fighting an 'uphill battle,' Palo Alto's longtime MacArthur Park to close until 2021
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 4,311 views

Do peaceful protests do any good? How about the more violent ones?
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 2,448 views

Traffic Lights for the Whole Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,695 views

Did a hedge fund just steal your EV rebate?
By Sherry Listgarten | 0 comments | 1,146 views