|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
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.
It’s the latest in a wave of projects that have eroded the city’s affordable housing stock in favor of for-sale rowhouses and townhomes, raising concerns that lower-income tenants are being displaced in their wake. Adding to the anxiety is the worry that tenants will have a tough time moving in light of the new coronavirus pandemic.
But council members say their hands are tied: The project meets zoning requirements, and the city has little discretion to block the property owner from exiting the rental market. And while the council has vowed for years to find ways to slow the loss of older homes and better help displaced residents, it has yet to pass a comprehensive plan.
The proposal by SummerHill Homes replaces the 116 units that make up the Meadowood Apartments at 1555 W. Middlefield Road with 115 three-story rowhouses, each with an estimated $1.5 million sale price and no below-market-rate units. The project would essentially create a long block of houses on the south side of the road spanning from Burgoyne Street to San Pierre Way.
The May 19 deliberations had a sense of deja vu, with council members citing the inevitable nature of the project while lamenting the loss of homes that have been naturally affordable for decades. The same conflict came up when the council approved rowhouses on Walker Drive, Montecito Avenue, and in two locations on Rock Street in December 2018 and again in April last year.
By the city’s estimates, Mountain View is on pace to destroy 127 of its rent-controlled apartments every year.
Echoing the concerns over displacement, some residents emailed the council or spoke via Zoom during the meeting opposing the project, saying it would inevitably boot vulnerable tenants out of Mountain View. The families living at Meadowood include seniors, low-income immigrants and people with disabilities, said resident Jessie Cardenas, many of whom are not going to be able to afford the multimillion-dollar homes in the project.
“You’re giving this (housing) to other people, but you’re taking it away from the people who really need it,” he said.
Resident Kimberly Richardson told the council in an email that city residents are sick of seeing affordable homes being torn down to provide “luxury units for rich people,” and protested the loss of 55 heritage trees from the site, while Sharon Gloster — a homeowner near the Meadowood Apartments — questioned what these large-scale redevelopments are doing to the makeup of the city.
“Will Mountain View just be home to tech workers? What will happen to our diverse community? Who will work in the lower-paying service jobs or teach in our schools or work for the city?” she asked.
Adding to the concerns, the redevelopment was approved amid the coronavirus outbreak and subsequent public health orders that have forced people to stay indoors and shut down businesses. Meadowood residents and advocacy groups worry that it will be difficult finding a new place to live by the move-out date of October 2020.
SummerHill representatives agreed at the meeting to a voluntary three-month grace period that would allow residents to stay through Jan. 22, 2021, if needed. In the event that the countywide moratorium on evictions is extended past October, SummerHill would be barred from ousting renters until the restrictions are lifted, according to city staff.
Council members didn’t openly begrudge SummerHill Homes or the property owner at the meeting for proposing to raze the apartments, instead laying the blame elsewhere. Councilman Lucas Ramirez pointed to provisions in state law that “severely curtails” the council’s discretion in reviewing code-compliant projects, and this is an instance where more local control would’ve been valuable.
“If we had greater discretion in reviewing projects like this, I think our conversations would look very different,” Ramirez said. “But we don’t have that discretion.”
Others suggested that landlords are seeking to exit the rental market because of limits set by the city’s rent control law, which caps annual rent increases on most housing units built before 1995. Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga referred to “unintended consequences” that have resulted in a spree of redevelopment projects.
“I understand the interests of certain advocacy groups to minimize the costs on tenants, but when you do that and you limit the ability of property owners to improve their units as well, they may choose to get out of the business as we’re seeing,” Abe-Koga said.
During the meeting, the Meadowood property owner stated that she currently faces millions of dollars in repairs to keep the aging apartments afloat, including the replacement of a 50-year-old plumbing system and new roofs, and that the renovation work would temporarily force residents out of the building.
Ramirez and Councilwoman Alison Hicks, who voted against the proposal, said they opposed the project on the grounds that the environmental review was lacking and failed to identify the full extent of the displacement resulting from the rowhouse development. The documents suggest that SummerHill’s project “would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,” suggesting that the city’s roughly 15,000 rent-controlled housing units would be available to the Meadowood tenants.
Ramirez said he wasn’t convinced. Not only is the vacancy rate among those apartments very low — hovering around 3.7%, according to the latest data — but the displaced residents may not meeting the standard benchmark of having an income equal to at least three times the cost of rent. Given that an estimated 69 of the 116 households are either low or moderate-income families, Ramirez said he is concerned that they won’t find another place to rent within the city.
On the contrary, SummerHill sought to convince the council that a majority of the tenants are not the longtime, vulnerable Mountain View residents that the council has sought to protect. Representatives from the developer cited their own data showing that the complex has frequent turnover — 70% of the tenants have been at the complex for less than five years — and that an estimated 75% of the tenants make more than 120% of the area’s median income, or $153,000 for a family of four. This data appears to conflict with the project’s own environmental review, Ramirez said.
Though the 1555 W. Middlefield Road proposal is in many ways similar to past projects that tear down older apartments, it could potentially be the last of its kind. City officials are crafting a wide range of anti-displacement policies, including a “no net loss” requirement that would prevent developers from building fewer homes than they tear down.
Even more significant is a new state law that took effect earlier this year. Senate Bill 330 would also prohibit cities from approving projects that reduce the total number of housing units, and would require developers to give all former tenants the first rights to return to new housing built on the property — at the same level of rent they were paying before.
Though the law has been in effect for months, SummerHill Homes’ project on Middlefield Road does not have to abide by the new rules. City staff say the project was deemed “complete” prior to Jan. 1, 2020, making it exempt from the provisions.
The blame begins with the city council, not sure why they are looking around to find someone else.
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”
‘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.
I wholly welcome ownership housing. Displaced renters are welcome to compete on the buyer’s market or move somewhere more affordable. Nothing lasts forever.
“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!…..
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.
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….
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Rent control – there goes rental properties! What did these fools expect?
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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?
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) 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.
@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.
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.
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.
People to organize, and VOTE these bad City Council Members, OUT!
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
@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?
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 rich scum. 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.
@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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.