"In many ways, Mountain View's situation would seem the envy of pretty much anywhere else: a standard of living among the best in the world, a vibrant tech sector bringing solid jobs, and developers falling over each other for the chance to rebuild the town. But in years to come, 2015 might be remembered as the time when the development boom and tech bonanza left Mountain View bursting at the seams."


Lead re-written from the perspective of at least one resident of Mountain View:

"In many ways, Mountain View's situation would seem the envy of pretty much anywhere else: a standard of living among the best in the world, a vibrant tech sector bringing solid jobs, and developers falling all over each other for the chance to get rich at the expense of the quality of life of the current residents of the city of Mountain View. But in years to come, 2015 might be remembered as the time when the city cultivated development boom and tech bonanza left Mountain View bursting at the seams, and with numerous pressing problems which naturally follow such unchecked, and some might say, poorly planned, massive growth.

...

None of what problems Mountain View has been experiencing over the past year or so, is shocking in the least. If A then B, that's what happens. It's been like watching a slow motion train wreck, except instead of the destruction of a train, I've been watching the destruction of a city and it's quality of life.

It's not rocket science, people.



Happy New Year.

While El Camino has gotten a lot of attention for the BRT proposal, I think the biggest impact of 2015 has been the ongoing development of several humongous apartment complexes along ECR. I am generally pro high-density housing, but these compounds are looking pretty unsightly, and are positioned to guarantee more traffic headaches along ECR. I would much rather see a well-developed downtown, with connections to North Bayshore, Caltrain, and the VTA, rather than the sprawl that was "planned" by the former City Council.

Los Altos doesn't seem to be bothered by affluence and (lack of) affordability. Why doesn't Mountain View decide to follow Los Altos' lead? MV would be a heck of a lot more pleasant place to live if it finally faced up to the reality that "affordable housing for all" is just an unachievable pipe dream dreamed up by liberals and others who are economically ignorant.

@OldMV

When members of the city council base urban development on "social justice", one shouldn't be surprised when they back asinine proposals such as dedicating a lane of traffic on one of the busiest roads in the area to bus traffic.

Never mind that ridership on VTA buses is abysmally low, never mind that ECR is a key artery for people to get to and from work, and never mind that it will cause congestion on residential streets. It's all in the name of "social justice"... as defined by our esteemed city council apparently.

As a side node, I personally I find it the pinnacle of hilarity that one particular city council member who is a financial advisor to high net worth individuals, drives a 100K+ car, and lives in a 3+ million dollar home is oh so concerned about "social justice". It's either patronizing of hypocritical, or perhaps both.

"MV would be a heck of a lot more pleasant place to live if it finally faced up to the reality that "affordable housing for all" is just an unachievable pipe dream dreamed up by liberals and others who are economically ignorant."

Translation: Those pesky non-rich people need to be sent out of Google View. By cattle trucks, if possible.

WHY is Mountain View the ONLY place expected to provide low income housing??? How about Palo Alto, Los Altos, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside... Mt. View is beginning to look like Los Angeles. Where have all the trees gone? Disgusting!

Awful what the city has done to this once great city and it's people. All because of monies they get from the companies like Google and Intuit. Good companies, bad decisions of the city. Too much traffic too many people. Shame on the people that so call run this city. You have hurt Seniors and young familes..just awful

@Steve; Both

People will move where the jobs are. Right now, that's Silicon Valley and Mountain View. When people move in and the population increases, development will ensue so supply can meet demand. When you artificially constrain supply (by not allowing housing development), you raise the price of housing which slows economic growth and the general standard of living, disproportionately affecting the poorest among us. And when you reject transit solutions appropriate for the higher population/population density associated with new jobs (like BRT), you make traffic and it's associated pollution and time wasting commutes worse.

Cities are dynamic places. No one has the right to prevent their evolution. If you don't like how Mountain View is changing, you are free to sell your over-priced home and live elsewhere. The person that bought a single family home 20 years ago has no more right to live in Mountain View and no more say about its future than the Google employee that's been there 2 years. Mountain View is changing, regardless of whether you think that's a good or bad thing, either accept it and get out of the way or cash in and leave.

AlexS nailed it! Well said!

Janet Yellen claimed credit for rising home prices due to Fed policy. Unfortunately the rise has been uneven . Land values.have shot up due to speculators more than real need.

Raising the minimum wages was the easiest thing to do but it will not solve the affordable housing crisis. Mountain View could have mandated new construction to have twenty percent affordable housing rather than just imposing soft rent controls. However, the courage to face the political will of the rich commercial developers was too great for our soft, gutless and weak liberal city council.

@Phil - You wrote, "the courage to face the political will of the rich commercial developers was too great for our soft, gutless and weak liberal city council."

I agree with everything except the "liberal" part. I think of playing along with big money interests as a "conservative" trait.

But really, neither liberals nor conservatives have any monopoly on gutlessness or subservience.