We've had problems already with rolling brown outs, water shortages, and traffic horribly gridlocked on our streets. But somehow we think that if we add scads more people to the mix, we'll do better on all these problems, rather than worse. It defiles logic.
And another thing that is counter-intuitive, but is true in this case, is that the more new housing built in MV, the more the market rate of rent climbs. It is not simple supply and demand. It is pricey new stuff that sets really high rates, and must, because the land was so expensive when they bought it. They have to finish it out with all the fine finishes, etc., or it would take longer to amortize their major initial investment.
But then other properties typically raise their rents, too. Some assume this is pure greed, but in actuality, landlords of other properties in town catch flak for being priced low. They'll hear: "What's wrong with your place, it's so cheap, is it crappy?"; "You get what you pay for, so this place must really have problems!"; and worse! They must stay at least close to market or they catch a reputation as inferior. And with the six story building planned for up and down El Camino Real (where most of the oldest, and thus lowest priced rentals in town are found) the housing already there will become inferior with the years of construction noise early in the morning, and the dust, and also as a result of the new buildings towering over them, blocking the sun, the breeze, and the view from them. Parking on their streets will become ferocious, and so will the traffic cutting through from the new neighbors, and cars in general escaping the ever more gridlocked main streets.
Why does this have to be? In what way does it make Mountain View better to cram ever more people into MV to fill the ever more high tech jobs that MV keeps allowing? Yet what do these big high tech companies contribute to MV? Not some little stuff, like a few gifts for schools. I mean really contribute? They make no product we can tax for our city. They tend not to hire locally. Eateries near them have gone out of business. And we must transform our whole city to handle their needs?
I don't see the point. Let's stop leaping ahead with such building, office and infill residential that messes up what we have. Instead, let's develop just some very outstanding developments in which people can really enjoy living, where they can really open their windows for the breeze, that are not along noisy, hectic, bad air arterials, but rather are laid out in a well planned whole that is set up just right for the residents and their privacy, and that of everyone around them. Large tracks in better places can serve well to make this possibly and add housing without overwhelming their neighborhoods. There are possible locations on Whisman and elsewhere. Our EPC knows where to recommend. Their advice is valuable and should always be included in planning new developments. So are they part of planning for what the new ECR Precise Plan allows? It's serious problem if not.
And as for biking, it's good that we encourage it. But not along dangerously fast, heavy traffic, such as along ECR. Mike Kasperzak said in the last city council meeting that council was looking at parallel streets as best for bike lanes, like Latham, instead of right on ECR. I agree. Safety first. And I don't want to run over anyone. And bikers would breathe a whole lot better, too, literally and figuratively.
And when bikers use parallel streets, as they near their destination on ECR, they then could go one block to ECR, where they would be able to walk their bike on the sidewalk for the small part of one mere block to arrive at their destination. Easy. And safe. And through bike traffic could stay on Latham, and the other bike thoroughfares, for the long haul so they can really get going.
But Kasperzak concluded his comment with pointing out the problem with Latham is having to put bikers onto ECR when they have to cross 237. But why would they need to do that? Latham could have a bike overpass built to extend it over 237, and over Freeway 85 as well. Just as near the end of Cuesta at Grant, residential streets lead to a marvelous pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the freeway. Our city needs to do that for our bikers everywhere possible. It really works and saves lives.
If we say there is no money for this, ask "How much is a life worth?" And be creative: Apply for Federal funding, seek state money, apply for a grant. ask Google to go for it! That would be one way they could really pay back this city for what we've done for them.
And every place that we are rebuilding in a major way, such as North of Bayshore, let's incorporate as many bike and pedestrian overpasses as possible, and include routes beforehand for light rail, etc., and loading zones for buses, shuttles, car pools, cabs, etc., with their own easy freeway on/off ramps These ramps needn't be build tall to reach the overpasses. They just need to exit and reenter the freeway directly to allow dropping off and picking up of passengers from some sort of waiting area. It could be comfortable and slick. Then these folks wouldn't need to crowd the already impassible streets leading in and out from the business park. Plan ahead and plan the whole lay out in its entirety to accommodate what will be needed. Otherwise, don't go forward until we do.
