Great, so we get to pay for own homes and many others as the quality of life continues to deteriorate. No water, no space in the landfill.

Robyn, I don't think you were the first person to live in Mountain View. Traffic got worse the day you moved here. It got worse the day I moved here. My place was probably an orchard a long time ago. Yours probably was, too. Each of us comes here and has an impact. It seems like you'd like to close and lock the gate behind you. I don't. I look forward to new people and a denser city.

The problem is not enough housing and affordable, right?
When the counties and cities get all this money from the taxpayers why don't they buy all the rent controlled apartments the city voters created.

They can pay all the landlords the full value it was worth before they devalued it, which every landlord would take and mow it down and build section 8 tenements on top of it like you see in New york, block after block.

The Landlords win, the City wins and the voters get what they want!
Win, Win, Win!!

Have you folks seen Doug Moran's blog here about this whole subject? He critiqued the limitations (of SB35 especially, but also the process that produces such bills) already three weeks ago:

"Who would ever think that the way to increase affordable housing would be to make it more expensive? ... So who is it really intended to benefit? Construction trades unions and developers. Who are the losers? People needing affordable housing, taxpayers and other residents." Web Link

Doug Moran's blog is part of these (Embarcadero) Newspapers' online content (index via MV-Voice path: Web Link ) although only the Palo Alto paper's blogger listings visibly advertise it. Which makes no sense to me: Moran hits many topics of wider local interest than Palo Alto, such as this one. Whereas at least one other Embarcadero blogger who IS advertised on all three papers' specific web pages (including the Voice's) writes as if assuming his only readers were in Palo Alto.

Sorry, but Doug's blog is an unreadable exercise in his own ego boosting coming from trying to control every aspect of a posters comments, editing and scuttling them with a snide remark if they rankle the way he sees things, and his way is the ONLY logical way to see things it would seem. Just my observations though. I'm glad he keeps busy with it.

All Doug Moran does is lay out some basic, sensible, "adult" ground rules for comments in his blog, then enforce them pretty consistently. Especially, no misrepresenting of what he or others have posted. This concept is novel to some online opinionaters (accustomed to posting whatever they want online about anyone or anything, misrepresenting freely and without accountability). It creates a troll-free zone, leaving some trolls outraged and indignant. They post scurrilous put-downs of Doug Moran and sometimes, those spill over to other discussions, as with the comment above.

Anyway, that comment was CLEARLY irrelevant to my main message above, recommending Doug Moran's own analysis of SB35. Don't be distracted or derailed by anti-Moran trolling, check it for yourself: Web Link

In response to Bob you said:”

“The problem is not enough housing and affordable, right?

When the counties and cities get all this money from the taxpayers why don't they buy all the rent controlled apartments the city voters created.”

Why should the government buy the private property when constitutional and legal market regulations can achieve the same thing without spending the public money? The private interest is to cash out their private property. WHY SHOULD WE FORCE THE PUBLIC TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THE PRIVATE INVESTMENT POOR JUDGMENT? The Private Interest chose to gamble a large amount of money in a poker game that the house has the better hand.

You said:

“ They can pay all the landlords the full value it was worth before they devalued it, which every landlord would take and mow it down and build section 8 tenements on top of it like you see in New York, block after block.”

The government does not devalue property that is the exclusive realm of the free market. EXCEPT WHERE ZONING DECISIONS MAKE CLEAR DIFFERENCES IN USE OF LAND. However this did not take place, the zones are unchanged. Again the Private Interest wants the public to bail out the poor investment and management of the Private Interest. Why should the public bail out those who were well aware of their risks, but chose to bet anyway?

I am celebrating that the likelihood of AB 1505 to be signed will in fact require increased affordable housing state-wide when any new project is approved. It will not matter if rent control exists in any city or town in California. This new power for the local government will rebalance the influence on local governments from those Private Interests back to the Citizens of the local government. It will not make the industry less profitable as long as the industry makes smart decisions.

Hooray to the citizens.

The Governor signed all housing bills this morning. ESPECIALLY AB 1505.

Mountain View can now DICTATE that affordable housing is included in all projects.

Along with many other provisions.

The California Apartment Association and the California Realtors had a very bad day today. The following laws were enacted today by the signature of the Governor

The CAA and Realtors hates the new SB 2 (Atkins), the Building Homes and Jobs Act, because it creates a new funding source for affordable housing through a $75 fee on real estate transaction documents. It will provide funding based on all transaction documents.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines the approval process for infill developments in local communities that have failed to meet their regional housing needs. It will give affordable housing an advantage regarding getting projects approved and built.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new SB 166 (Skinner) ensures that cities maintain an ongoing supply of housing construction sites for residents of various income levels. It requires that diversity of housing will satisfy all income levels.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new SB 167 (Skinner) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify a denial of low- and moderate-income housing development projects. (SB 167 is identical to AB 678.) The local governments will not be allowed to arbitrarily or capriciously disregard all citizens based on their earnings.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new SB 540 (Roth) streamlines the environmental review process for certain local affordable housing projects. The CAA and Realtors hates the new AB 678 (Bocanegra) increases the standard of proof required for a local government to justify its denial of low- to moderate-income housing development projects. (AB 678 is identical to SB 167.) It will give an advantage to affordable housing projects, instead of benefiting the luxury projects.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new AB 72 (Santiago/Chiu) strengthens the state's ability to enforce laws that require local governments to achieve housing goals. It makes local governments accountable for failure to provide the new housing inventory defined in the state and area housing needs

The CAA and Realtors hates the new AB 1505 (Bloom/Bradford/Chiu/Gloria) authorizes cities and counties to adopt an inclusionary ordinance for residential rental units in order to create affordable housing. This provides local governments the power to require sufficient affordable housing to be provided in every project.

The CAA and Realtors hates the new AB 1521 (Bloom/Chiu) gives experienced housing organizations a first right of refusal to purchase affordable housing developments in order to keep the units affordable. This will allow the city governments the ability to prevent property dumping and transfer being done for the purpose of simply raising rents on the property after the transaction.

This has been a lousy day for the California Apartment Association and California Realtors