If the voters [albeit through a proxy as this was a survey] don't want to pay for this, then why doesn't City Council just stop and listen? Next issue.

Where in the heck (no profanity) does the City Council find the right to charge the city wih creating or spending millions of dollars (paid by the local owners) ?
My Gosh (no profanity), if one can't afford the rents, then one moves on to somewhere where they can afford to live.
Thia Socialist mentality of our (and many councils, legislators and Feds) that somehow thinks we must give everyone a place to live is a bunch of B.S....
QUIT this crap about having to finance housing for the "POOR" (ie: folks earning less than 60 or so K per year).

Get the hell out of the housing market... that is NOT the job of a City Council.

"The city paid $15,000 for the survey."

Sh**, I would of done it for $7,500 and I would have got better results.

Council members should not be asking "Who should pay for the city's afordable housing?" The question should be "Should we have affordable housing?" Which was answered by the survey, NO.

They should impose rent control and watch then watch all their beloved high-rise rental apartment developers flee!

I've commented before, I am one of the majority supporting either a $59 or a $29 parcel tax for this civic purpose. The Franklin project in particular supported two school teacher families to own condo-townhouses and live in this area (not moving out to the Central Valley). The NO NEW TAXES commentators here have two council members (Means and Inks) who effectively support their views [I usually find Mr. Inks more informed and consistent].
I think this council majority is grappling with the issue of the functions of 'civil' government. Like we have taxes to support roads and car transportation use [I know of no toll roads in our city or county], it is within the rights of the city to operate taxes for this housing purpose. But they need 2/3 election support for a new tax.
I fully support Mike, Ronit and Laura on this issue [hey - show up and talk at enough council meetings, and the council members start to know your first name].

This must be an early April Fool story. There is so much wrong with the concept that it falls way beyond absurd. Trying to repeal the economic law of supply and demand will not have satisfying results!
And really, $37.50 per person surveyed?

Looks like terms for Mike and Laura are up in January 2013 -- less than a year away... vote them out! Unfortunately we're stuck with Ronit for a bit longer.

$15,000 for a survey to figure out something obvious? What a waste of tax dollars.

What a waste of money,
but a point was made, why not have rent control? But yes the coveted developer money would dry up.

So the the solution is to cram 1200 apartments into the city and charge the homeowners a "fee".

Seen the traffic on San Antonio lately? get ready for more.

Rent control is a great idea, only the real purpose of BMR funds is for these psuedo liberals is to soothe their conscience with a token model low income housing development, preferrable green in design, that they can all point to and slobber over. In reality such developments would not even serve .01% of those seeking relief in the housing market. As far a tax, it's all just a shell game. The real winners are the developers.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand the push for having the city pay for affordable housing. I think Mountain View has many affordable housing options. There are many modest but nice apartments off Rengstorff & California Ave. MV has several mobile home parks, and the city has two new affordable housing projects! That seems like a lot to me.

A 1 bed/1 bath apt in MV rents for $1300/mo. With 2 working adults that's $650 per person per month. Even at minimum wage ($8/hr) working full time you'll make $1300 per month before taxes. This sounds very much like how I lived right after college. It's totally workable. If you can't manage the $1300/mo alone, get a roommate! That's what I did, while living here in Mountain View.

The REI employee who commutes from Gilroy does so by choice (though may have said otherwise in the hopes of getting some help). If they really wanted to live here they could. It would mean sacrificing other things like a new car, an iPhone, iPad, going out in the evening and drinking with friends, but life is about making choices. If I can make it work, I don't see why others can't.

If affordable housing were really such a problem here, there wouldn't be another story in this same paper about 40% of the student population in MV being non-English learners (mainly low-income Latinos). 40%! Sounds to me like a large group of generally low-income people are still able to live here, so what's the problem?!

I think this issue is dead and we really need to move on to more important things (like ways to help bridge the learning divide between the children in our community by improving the schools for all).

By the way, here's a really interesting read for those of you in this discussion proposing rent control for Mountain View. I think that's a terrible idea. I have a number of high-income friends in SF who choose to rent because they can live at a fraction of the cost (and even have maintenance paid for by the landlord) rather than purchase their own home. They then are able to invest that money elsewhere (or buy vacation homes in Hawaii).

Rent control is NOT a good solution as it does little to help those who really need it. I think tax credits/deductions are the best way to target truly low-income people and give them the extra help they need.

How Rent Control Subsidizes the Super Rich
Web Link