Measure A says it's a $950M bond measure.

But, that's a lie. It is really a $950M bond measure with 25-30 years of repayment of the principle ($950M) plus 25-30 years of interest payments at an unknown cost.

The end cost will likely be close to double the stated amount of $950M.

What this is, if you look into where the money goes, is crony-capitalism with most of the funds going to developers, construction companies and the unions they employ.

Don't be fooled, vote no on Measure A.

Mark Hinkle, President: SVTA

Has SVTA ever endorsed a bond measure? What does a good bond measure look like?

From the article: "The California Housing Partnership has found that 67,576 additional homes are needed for very-low-income and extremely-low income Santa Clara County renters."

From the article: "Measure A, a $950 million bond measure, would provide funding to acquire or improve an estimated 5,000 affordable-housing units"

Building 7% of the units needed at a cost of $1.9B doesn't seem like a good use of tax-payer dollars to me. If we were to scale this up, it would cost roughly $26B to build 100% of the units needed.

Instead of helping 7% of the people at great expense, I think it would be wiser to relax zoning and allow more apartments to be built. Increased supply will drive down prices for everyone.

I was planning to vote for this, but now with rent control on the table in Mountain View I think I'm just going to say no to everything. If everything ends up passing I think we could be in some trouble. I wish there was more alignment and better understanding of what really will help, then we focus on that solution. All these randomly proposed solutions are just conflicting and confusing.