Roni Bryant says he has "something of a heavy heart" but joins the others in this bad decision (bad for the commoners and small businessses but good of course for the moneyed ones)nevertheless because he has "enormous respect" for the developers. How more nauseating could this get? And then, the calculations/previsions of 2 tenants per studio (up to $793/month) are even more revolting as they sanction a quality of life hardly in line with what would be expected from a city that headquarters the likes of Google. Oh, I forgot: the below the poverty line tenants and the taquerias owners are too small a fish-probably spanish speaking mostly, non-voters, semi-illiterate, disenfranchised. Really, a hard choice for the council to look after the interests of the developers foremost. And this is only what shows on the surface. I'm very curious about lies below the surface of this deal. Investigative journalists come forth.

Studio rents from $521 to $793/month for people who earn from 21,800 to $32,625/year. Do you call this "affordable"? Really? This is equivalent to people who make $60-$96K/year paying a rent of $1,500-2,400 for a studio in a poor section of town.Someone stands to gain from this deal and it's not the poor people. And how much in taxes is Google paying to the City? Shhhh, better not say, so we don't blush with embarassment...or rage. Something stinks in Mountain Phew.

How many hours of city attorney time is worth a $9.3 million dollar gift to a developer to raze buildings that were built long before the current city codes were in place? There are literally hundreds of single-family homes around here that are older than me and likely breaking some current code or other, the only difference being the paycheck to a favored developer.

How much more affordable housing needs to be built up before we realize there's enough rental tenancy in Mountain View and we should let the other cities around here hold up their end? Apparently the city council members haven't walked down California Street past Shoreline and are unaware of the numerous 70's era apartment complexes harboring all kinds of code violations -- hopefully the property tax paying locals aren't on the hook to fix those up too.

Well we certainly don't want low-income housing near any of the more affluent neighborhoods!

Enough with social engineering!

And I have to laugh when the city "learned that 48 people were living in the 10 existing units" increasing the cost of relocating them, whatever that means. Does the city have camps set up nearby? And then they want to keep the occupancy limit to two per studio? Wow, just wow. On any given night of the week you've got familiies, yes families, renting floor space for sleeping only up and down California Ave.

And then there's those that will "qualify" for this housing. Spend some time over near the San Antonio Circle low-income housing unit next to CSMA and you'll quickly see that it's full of legal low-output subsidized workers who are looking for a cheap place to squat for the rest of their lives. I'd much rather have 5 illegals in a market rate rental unit and keep La Bamba.

$774K to move 10 households? Seriously? I'll do it for $500K.

What I'm wondering is did any council members even go look at the inside of this building, upstairs? Do they really know who are the residents whose lives will be greatly affected by their decisions?

A couple of my former students (now high school age) live there. Their family of 5 lives in one bedroom, another family lives in the other bedroom, and an aunt and uncle sleep on the bed in the kitchen/dining room that's between the two. Dad works construction, Mom works long days at the car wash, and the kids are doing the best they can at school, which isn't easy given that they didn't even have a school in their village in Honduras before they moved here in 2nd grade.

The conditions are deplorable. My guess is a lot of people have no idea how very low income people really live. Yet these are some of the happiest, kindest and most polite people I've ever met.

Not sure what should become of that building, just sayin' that it's important for those in the position of power to take a firsthand look and understand those whose lives are impacted by their decisions.

I know for a fact that council members who voted to pull out of Palo Alto Animal Shelter had never visited the facility, just hoping they would take a closer look at those they govern.

I'm more upset that La Bamba won't be at this location than I am about 22 people living in a two bedroom apartment, most likely out of code.

One of the best burritos I've ever had.