"I don't think I would go for something termed rent control," Unangst said, adding that he prefers the term "rent stabilization."


O.K. call it "Rent Stabilization" instead of what is is "Rent Control."
How many of us will be fooled by Greg's chiice of words?

I notice that Greg is not concerned about not concerned about protecting our neighborhood, traffic, parking, BRT, etc.

I recommend a NO vote on Greg Unangst!
.

Ok, so Unangst is for Rent Control. That makes him a none starter for me. I can easily forget about him now. Thanks for trying to word smith the truth.

I understand people wanting to live in MV.
Personally I'd like to live in a beautiful house in Atherton but I cannot afford it. So should Atherton City Council force owners to lower the rents so I can live there.

We should all be allowed to live in fine houses in Palo Alto but we cannot.
How about the Hamptons outside New York. Why don't they lower the house prices so I can live there? Redevelop the 20 acre properties and build lots of condos so we can all live there.

"leading a platoon of American and Vietnamese allies as a captain and master sergeant."

This sentence needs editing. A captain is an officer. A master sergeant is a senior enlisted rank. I'm guessing if he graduated from West Point he was a captain and then a major.

obviously all these candidates think the entirety of MV voters express their opinions in the comments section here.

Do these economics experts have their Gini coefficients ready for us to look at?

Some of you may have read the article in the Mercury about a Palo Alto home bought in 1970 for $35,000 that sold for $3 million. Web Link

I respect homeowners and I respect that it always took perseverance to be a homeowner in the Silicon Valley past or present, but I don't feel the same respect has been extended to new residents, particularly renters.

Newer residents are derided as being selfish or looking for handouts. To understand why all these statements are so disrespectful to current renters, compare these numbers:

Palo Alto Home Bought in 1970:
$35,000
US Median Household Income in 1970:
$7,559
Home Price to Income Ratio:
4.6x

Current Mountain View Median Home Price:
$1,014,000
Current US Median Household Income:
$51,900
Home Price to Income Ratio:
19.5x (four times as hard to buy a home these days)

Even if you double the median income to reflect Mountain View salaries ($103k), that would be 9.8x, still twice as hard it was in 1970.

All residents have every right to want to maintain a way of living. In extension, they have every right to resist changes that they perceive to hurt their well being. Yet, over this campaign season too frequently the hardships of 60% of the city's residents has been described with too little empathy or at times, even cruel sarcasm.

Too often attempts to help renters is seen less as an attempt to help those less well off than you, but more as a direct assault against you.

I spent Saturday afternoon canvasing some apartments in MV for some candidates. As I walked up what seemed to be never ending flights and switchbacks, I thought to myself how hard some of our neighbors work, and how many Mountain View residents in more affluent parts may never even know these apartments and whole streets even exist in their city.

Thank you Mr. Unangst for fighting for so very many silent neighbors. Mr. Unangst used his own savings to bring attention this election to the most vulnerable among us. You continue to define what it means to be a real life hero.

Dear Chris,

If you are going to compare the median household prices of Palo Alto and Mountain View from 1970 and today, then you should also compare median LOCAL salaries from 1970 and today. To do otherwise, is dishonest.

Aren't you the guy promoting microhousing? You realize that is an absolute failure in the US? Take a look at what is going on in seattle. Horrible!

What is your malfunction?

Good idea suggesting using all local numbers because it even more highlights how much harder it is today than it was in 1970.

Mountain View 1970s median salary: $9,364 Web Link
So a $35,000 home in 1970 is a home price to income ratio of 3.7x, using national median is a more flattering 4.6x. So a home back then was 3-4x one's annual salary.

Today, it's 10-20x one's annual salary (10x using MV median, 20x using US median), as shown in the earlier post.

In Seattle, many complained about undesirable new residents and crowded street parking regarding microhousing. As someone who lives in North Bayshore, if new micro housing in NB was zoned and built without parking, I don't think people will be parking their cars over a mile away across the freeway crowding out existing residents. It would be much easier for such a resident to utilize shared car services at that point. It is also worth noting that microhousing in Seattle was not built by main hubs of employment, that's not the case in NB.

The United Nations released a new report on climate change stating that we must do things differently. Web Link If microhousing can be offered to those who voluntarily wish to live on a smaller carbon footprint, I continue to push what's the harm? If no one wants it, it doesn't get built.

If by malfunction you mean I see things differently than what's currently done, then thank you! I continue to welcome critiques, and I would be the first to reject the idea if it cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?