Dear Friends and Neighbors,
We share Jane's opinion. Neighbors Helping Neighbors is a small non profit. Besides providing one week of groceries to those middle ($100K to $25K) and low income residents who are food insecure, we have a large housing network to find folks a suitable place and rent in their price ranges.
We do not see the root cause of the housing crisis as 'supply and demand'but rather a 'monkey see monkey do'. Allow me to explain, after speaking to a significant number of landlords and renters, plus homeowners,most tell us that they are charging historically high rents because the other landlords are doing it. And most landlords say, they do not have a financial need to increase their rents to market rates. Which incidentally, average rents are (1)bedroom = $$2650 and (2) bedroom = $3,050. Inc some cases, NHN has talked landlords in to reducing their rent increases. At present NHN has 1500 households in our housing networks, And this number grows by 20 households per week. The shared housing market is also impacted. Please let's stop the maddness.
If you or any one you know of needs help with housing or any other life's challenges, please contact neighborshelpingneighbors2013@gmail.com
NHN is holding a series of outreach events in Mtn. View and Palo Alto, check MV Voice Calanadar pages or contact us for dates (9/27,10/30, 11/01 and 12/06)and locations.

Jane's point is almost entirely emotional How do you plan to get developers to build housing at a reasonable price?

Why can't we talk about the increasing the density downtown and improving public transit, such as a tram between Shoreline Park and downtown MV? Anyone entering and leaving that area for events will surely be appreciative.

This other poster misses the point. Right now the city has acted to FORBID any housing uses in North Bayshore. A property owner has no control over his own property. If he sees a demand (and surely the first project would be full to the brim) for housing, he is utterly blocked. There's no excuse for that. This is a case of the city doing micromanagement and social engineering. It's extremely hurtful to property owners and to those who would purchase access to that housing. I also harms the other people who have to endure all the extra traffic.

It doesn't matter if you permit it in zoning and no one does it. No one is arguing that the city should find the developer or MANDATE housing. This is an area where the city should back off its earlier meddling.

If at the same time, the city using land it has there, finds it easier to construct a low income housing project, that's great. But that's a separate issue. The city owns more uncommitted land in North Bayshore than anywhere else. It has a neighborhood park up there. It has a regional park and amphitheater with dense commercial uses. It's trying to encourage better mass transit. Nearby housing fits right in....

Why do we need more office or housing spaces ? Mountain View is already over crowed. The traffic is out of control and now we also have the 49's traffic. There is no more need for anymore housing and also we have a major drought going on. It seems all they do is just keep building, but no plans are set to help with the current issues that we are dealing with. We need a new group of leaders for this city. Get rid of all the idiots who are running this city.

Jac Siegel presents it like it is - housing is desperately needed, housing in North Bayshore is wrong. It will increase, not decrease the problems of congestion, smog, crowding, establishing a "company town" in town with unprecedented power over the reminder of the city... and it will not create affordable housing.

So who wants housing in North Bayshore? opportunists who want to get elected without actually doing their homework, exploiting a real problem but offering a non-solution. If they get elected, they will continue to vote without doing their homework first.

From these two op eds and a few other discussions threads, I haven't seen a discussion to one of my main questions on this topic: Since one of the arguments for building housing in North Bayshore is to reduce auto traffic, emissions, etc., is the intention to make such housing exclusive to those who work within MV, or more specifically in North Bayshore? I'd like to see discussion on that - if another reader has a lead as to where I could find it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

To the Voice:
Why is it not disclosed that Jane Horton is or was as of 4/29/14 on the board directors of Pacific Studies Institute the name on the tax form for Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CEPO). CEPO is the non-profit that lists Lenny Siegel as both the Executive Director and President.

It also seems the Voice and Daniel DeBolt failed to mention that Alison Hicks is also been a member of the same board with Lenny Siegel for the past three years. Here is a link to the story about a survey that may negatively impact Lenny.
Web Link
I think someone needs to look into these non-disclosures and possible conflicts of interest.

There are also questions about Balancedmv.org. the Siegel affiliated website.
Go to the “join” page and this is what one gets:
Web Link

Is CPEO- Director Lenny Siegel using any federal funds or resources he receives to promote the one issue his campaign for city council is running on?
When will Lenny Siegel open his books on CEPO, which according to 501 C laws should be open to the public?

I'm tired of the rest of us south of 101 suffering traffic congestion and sky-high rents just because a few eco-nut Councilmembers think protecting wildlife is more important than caring for people and creating a livable community in North Bayshore. They act as if North Bayshore is some precious, untouchable, wildlife sanctuary. It isn't. There already are hundreds of housing units in North Bayshore. Let's get on with it. If the wildlife folks want to protect wildlife, let them purchase land and do what they will with it.

"They act as if North Bayshore is some precious, untouchable, wildlife sanctuary. It isn't. There already are hundreds of housing units in North Bayshore. Let's get on with it. If the wildlife folks want to protect wildlife, let them purchase land and do what they will with it."

Sure! Hundreds of housing units, so let's make it 5,000????!!!!! Why not 20,000? When will it end?

An old Mountain view resident is asking the right questions, is anybody wondering why there are only two points of view on this topic when all the candidates are speaking about it, and incidentally one of the opinions comes from somebody actively campaigning for Lanny Siegel ? Will the Voice ever stop its single-minded coverage of Siegel's single issue candidacy ?

There is plenty of space for both offices and homes in San Jose, matter of fact there are a lot of new communities popping up left and right there.

Best to let the places that have plenty of space handle the building of new space, then to try and cram every nook an cranny we can into Mt. View.

to Lilly and An Old Mountain View Resident,
This is Jane. I am free to present my point of view in the Voice, just as you are free to present yours. That is what our freedom of speech and our excitement about this election is about. Having my point of view in the Voice does not prevent you from having your point of view. Many people with opinions are active campaigners; the Voice disclosed that I am a member of Balanced Mountain View. I don't see how an opinion about housing creates a conflict of interest, and there was certainly no effort to non-disclose. My opinion was not an editorial to support Lenny, as there are also other qualified candidates which support housing in North Bayshore. And right now there ARE basically two points of view on the issue: for housing in North Bayshore or against housing in North Bayshore. Lilly, if you have a third view, please present it, I am sure people are interested in other options. Interesting that a pro-housing op-ed is taken as single-minded coverage on Lenny, when I did not mention ANY candidate in my article. The city wants lots of office space in North Bayshore and my opinion is that housing and retail can be effectively built in the same space, reducing office in the same planned footprint. And if you are interested in Lenny's financial disclosure why don't you just ask him instead of implying wrongdoing?

To Jane,
I am trying to get the Voice to disclose that both you and Alice are board members of CEPO, which Lenny is the executive director and president.
There are many rules pertaining to non-profits and participation in politics. I would think that all board members of CEPO would want all information out and public so there are no questions of fairness.

You say: “And if you are interested in Lenny's financial disclosure why don't you just ask him instead of implying wrongdoing?”

When my friend asked him for the date of the next board meeting- he refused to tell her.
When my friend pushed to get CEPO’s bylaws or and notes from board meetings, he accused her of being part of a conspiracy to “dig up dirt or him.” Then he hung up on her.
So I would like you to make the records available.
Personally I fear retaliation, I have seen him since his SDS days.

Hello An Old Mountain View Resident

Agreed that nonprofit organizations cannot engage in political campaigning. CPEO is not engaging in political campaigning. My personal opinion was in the MV Voice Op-Ed article. My words were not on behalf of any non-profit with which I am affiliated, nor were they represented to be so. My article did not mention or promote any candidate.

It sounds like you did not ask Lenny for the information you want.

Gee, Jane is emotional? She follows good emotions, and tries to avoid bad. How utterly American of her. "We hold these truths to be self evident ... and the pursuit of happiness." God bless her, and Thomas.

@Jane,

Give me a break!

You and Lenny have been associated together for years.
While your article did not mention or explicitly promote any candidate it is clear that you and the Voice, blatantly supports his position.

Daniel DeBolt has converted the Voice from a newspaper to a Lenny Siegel propaganda piece.

Lenny's goal is to reduce housing prices in Mountain View.
The only way to do this, outside of a major recession, is to make Mountain View a much less desirable place to live. Doubling the number of residences and population by 2030, will go a long way towards achieving this goal

To Jane and Konrad:

Jane's response continues to be emotional and does not answer the questions. Why can't Jane make public information on CEPO.

Direct question: Will you release a copy of the Bylaws of CEPO to Konrad?

Notice Jane never addressed this paragraph:
When my friend asked him for the date of the next board meeting- he refused to tell her.
When my friend pushed to get CEPO's bylaws or and notes from board meetings, he accused her of being part of a conspiracy to "dig up dirt or him." Then he hung up on her.
So I would like you to make the records available.
Personally I fear retaliation, I have seen him since his SDS days.

When will you answer, Jane?

Looks like what was said here is all true:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by An old Mountain View Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 23, 2014 at 10:19 pm
"To Jane,
I am trying to get the Voice to disclose that both you and Alice are board members of CEPO, which Lenny is the executive director and president.
There are many rules pertaining to non-profits and participation in politics. I would think that all board members of CEPO would want all information out and public so there are no questions of fairness.

You say: "And if you are interested in Lenny's financial disclosure why don't you just ask him instead of implying wrongdoing?"

When my friend asked him for the date of the next board meeting- he refused to tell her.
When my friend pushed to get CEPO's bylaws or and notes from board meetings, he accused her of being part of a conspiracy to "dig up dirt or him." Then he hung up on her.
So I would like you to make the records available.
Personally I fear retaliation, I have seen him since his SDS days."

Let's take a look at these 2 passages from the article:
1. "I have seen the area develop and traffic congestion become very impactful on quality-of-life issues"
2. "If there is no housing included in the North Bayshore plan, then we increase the already out-of-balance situation we have between housing and jobs"
If traffic congestion is bad, how bringing even more residents to the city is going to fix this? Try to drive around 8am near Truman/Bryant. That's a residential area, there no offices but MVHS. How will including some housing in the North Bayshore is going to help traffic congestion there?

I find it amusing and enlightening how many people are ranting and clutching their pearls in this thread, but somehow it's only Jane who is being called "emotional".

"Geek" is right and said it well. (See slightly above.)

It certainly is already a mess, and yet the City of Mtn. View wants to compound that immensely by adding tons more housing, always upward, despite warnings from our own Sate's Academy of Sciences warnings about limiting high rise construction in earthquake zones.

At the last City Council study session of El Camino, Council Member Ronit Bryant told the truth when she said traffic is already badly gridlocked and in the future it will continue to get worse. She said it flat out, because they are continuing to approve high density housing for more and more people, and with EL Camino, more and more people will dump out onto it for more rush hours torment.

She and the majority of council members voted to stack it up high, thereby assuring worse traffic gridlock and parking problems, so she is guaranteed to be accurate in her statement. She also honestly explained that she needs high buildings beside busy traffic for a sense of personal "safety." That is called agoraphobia. It can be treated. Better for her to get counseling for that than to inflict her needs on the rest of us, especially those who get claustrophobic, or who simply want to continue to enjoy the views of the mountains that comprise our beautiful valley while they are actually getting somewhere along El Camino.

@ Absurd

You forgot to say that Ronit Bryant lives in a single family home not in a 8/10 story apartment I wonder why if she feels secure only near high-rise buildings, but lives in an area where the tallest house within blocks is no more than 2!

So I guess I don't like the idea of housing in North Bayshore at all, for several reasons. And I'm also not a fan of Mr. Lenny Siegel. He has extreme positions on this one issue, and for the most part it's the only issue that he cares about. I don't feel there's any chance he'd care about my needs because I own my place and care about quality of life here, in Mountain View. And I also happen to work for one of the companies that want to expand in North Bayshore, so I prefer that we can keep growing our offices here, in Mountain View. There, I said it.
But I do feel that some commenters here should reconsider the extent to which they air rather nasty accusations. Yes, the fact that Mr. Siegel is Jane's boss should have been disclosed, but the rest of the dirt just ain't necessary and doesn't add or subtract materially to either argument.

@ Why So Much dirt

I don't see any dirt , just the need of transparency in stories about a candidate that is proposing himself as a representative of the residents of the city !
Also, the respect of journalistic ethics that requires that a reporter not be a cheerleader for anyone, but report about each candidate accurately and fairly!

Don't distract the discussion with claims of bias. Mr. Siegel didn't cause this situation, he's only observing it. The news has to report the situation regardless of the observer!

I think the real story is all the daytime-only residents the city is planning to add to Mountain View. The census bureau tracks this number. Currently the city's population balloons by 27,000 during the daytime. This is despite 31,000 residents leaving the city each day to work elsewhere. 11,000 people who live in the city work in the city. This means that there are 70,000 jobs actually located in Mountain View now.

The city is embarking on a strategy which they admit will likely add 40,000 new jobs to the city, and only a small fraction of that amount in new places to live. In truth they underestimate the number of new jobs that will come, as companies cram more workers into existing buildings. The city doesn't accurately forecast the impact of each million square feet of new office space. So that 40,000 might be more like 70,000 new jobs.

Consider the 40,000 new jobs. Currently of the 58,000 commuters coming INTO Mountain View are offset by 31,000 commuters leaving the city. What's the net affect of the changes? We'll have 98,000 commuters coming into the city and still only 31,000 commuters leaving the city. The daytime population growth will drastically jump from 27,000 to 67,000 minimum. In truth so much office space may result in 100,000 added people being in Mountain View during the daytime. The population at night might increase from 76,000 now to 90,000 over the next few years. However, now in the daytime the population boost will be an effect that more than doubles the night time population.

This is the story. This is the EFFECT of the jobs/housing imbalance. People who say we can tolerate adding all this office space are ignoring the fact that the daytime resident bump will go from 36% now to 100% in the future. While the current net growth of 27,000 people might not be causing any problems, when that jump goes to 100,000 this will be a different story.

@Whoever
"Currently of the 58,000 commuters coming INTO Mountain View are offset by 31,000 commuters leaving the city"
How would it make better for Mountain View if 58000 were leaving the city every day?

"Resident" has it wrong, but these guys have got it right:

Posted by Liz
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 22, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Why do we need more office or housing spaces ? Mountain View is already over crowed. The traffic is out of control and now we also have the 49's traffic. There is no more need for anymore housing and also we have a major drought going on. It seems all they do is just keep building, but no plans are set to help with the current issues that we are dealing with. We need a new group of leaders for this city. Get rid of all the idiots who are running this city.

+ 4 people like this Posted by wishfull hopin'
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Sep 22, 2014 at 8:15 pm
Jac Siegel presents it like it is - housing is desperately needed, housing in North Bayshore is wrong. It will increase, not decrease the problems of congestion, smog, crowding, establishing a "company town" in town with unprecedented power over the reminder of the city... and it will not create affordable housing.

So who wants housing in North Bayshore? opportunists who want to get elected without actually doing their homework, exploiting a real problem but offering a non-solution. If they get elected, they will continue to vote without doing their homework first.

To Geek:

Maybe if all those folks left by shuttles, trains, light rail, car pools, company buses (hopefully to become electric soon), then the streets and other resources of MV wouldn't be stretched too far to handle them.

We are already letting trees die for lack of water. We're sort on parking. Emergency services serve us less the farther they are stretched, as do the library, the parks, schools, restaurants, and so on. I recall the days when I could be seated for dinner without having a reservation first.

Linda, regardless of the direction (in or out), these additional people will be on MV roads.

Mountain View...
Keep building apartments and fill them with residents.
Encourage the new residents to keep electing city council members
that will support building more apartments.

Builders are finding that MV is the builders paradise.
Traffic congestion and gridlock? Who cares?
The long term livability of Mountain View? Who cares?

The one thing that is even more annoying is that there
is absolutely no setback from the roads when these
new buildings go up.
Dilapidated 1 to 2 story buildings are far more appealing
than these new multistory glass and concrete buildings
hitting your face while driving through these roads.

San Antonio phase-1 ... these 330 apartments... where
is the aesthetics? MV residents and visitors not only
have to sit in the traffic, but they have to stare at
these new glass and concrete devoid of any aesthetics while
sitting in that traffic.

Why would any city want to self-destruct with this type
of "development"? MV city council needs to stop adding any
more jobs to this already congested city.