That's right the City Council left "first goal to "improve the quantity, diversity and affordability of housing" in Mountain View, and left it at that, with specific measures to be discussed later" Meaning, let's continue to keep it on the back burner and keep gettint more money for crazy rents and housing. Housing will be built BUT it will cost you anywhere from 5,000-7,000 dollars a month rent, which is ludacris!!! I am barely if you call me middle class and the rents are so high they are out of reach. Landlords are getting so greedy, they are getting rid of old tenants slapping on some paint and new rug and renting their aparements and homes for CRAZY amounts of money and they are getting it! We need rent control to prevent that for one and then more afforadable housing. What good are the new apartment high rises popping when only Googleville staff can afford them.

A city with housing but few parks and little green space, bike/pedestrian unfriendly-- this is what we want?

Housing and the "green" priorities that are now on the back burner can NOT be mutually exclusive or this place will turn into one big parking lot.

Since space is very limited and our small city has ballooned these last few years, should we build homes for everyone that wants to come here? We can't house everyone here in MT. View. nor can we house everyone from google and all the other large companies that setup shop here, there is a limit inorder for those that already live here to have some type of quality of life. Our traffic is bad, we don't need more. Our schools and infrastructures can't handle the exponential growth. There is a limit.

How does auto mobility become a priority when bicycle pedestrian experience was such an important focus of last year and the election? Which councilmembers supported that?

The quote was: "improve transportation by enhancing mobility and connectivity."

That's multi-modal.
Autos
Bikes
Ped
Transit

The council didn't throw out the work already done (or underway). They enhanced and enlarged the scope.

These are goals, they're not specific policies that implement those goals. Why is it surprising to the article author that specific measures will be discussed later? The whole point of goalmaking is to determine highlevel ideas and then only later do you figure out how to get there.

Given what we've seen of the City of MV's behavior recently, these are fatally flawed, incompatible and hypocritical "priorities". It's more like a list of buzzwords from politically correct fools. MV's irrational obsession with new high density housing has resulted in a marked degradation in the environment (quality of life) in MV. MV's plans for politically correct transportation alternatives, at the expense of vehicular traffic, portend future degradation in our environment (quality of life) of MV. In short, MV's housing and traffic plans are in direct and demonstrable conflict with the quality of life, and hence the "environment" of what was once a great city to live in.