How about relaxing the rules on Granny Units (ADUs) so people can rent out their garages and encourage granny units? Reduce permit fees even further and the reduce the crazy new house value that Santa Clara County uses to tax properties. It's crazy how cities in CA only care about relaxing rules for big developers but not as much effort to encourage more development by home owners.

I've never understood why it becomes the developer's responsibility to provide low income housing to any community. Are doctors required to provide a certain percentage of their patients with below market fees? Are grocery stores required to provide a certain percentage of their customers with below market prices? Do clothing stores provide below market rate prices? Obviously I could go on...

Ijn response to Nonsense

You said:”I’ve never understood why it becomes the developer's responsibility to provide low income housing to any community.”

Housing has been determined to be under heightened scrutiny due to the history of discrimination, and the critical needs that without housing, the likelihood of risk to the public safety of the citizens of the U.S. It has always been treated as a special market because of this. In fact, for the last 70 years, it has been assumed that it is the developers responsibility to provide low income housing. What has been occurring in the last 30 years is that developers have been chipping away at the special market rules. But this has resulted in a pendulum swing back to the increased rulemaking on the market. Thus the developers are being confronted with the rules getting stricter again.

“Are doctors required to provide a certain percentage of their patients with below market fees?”

In fact YES under the new rules established under the “Affordable Care Act” and participation with Medicare and Medicaid. I am sureprised you are not aware of it.

“Are grocery stores required to provide a certain percentage of their customers with below market prices?”

In fact they do because the market dictated it. It is called “Store-Brand” products. I again am very surprised that you are not aware of it.

“ Do clothing stores provide below market rate prices?”

Again, yes they do, if you ever buy from outlet stores or stores like Kmart or Kohls. These are products made for less prices to address the markets. This in fact is proof that your question already is moot.

It would appear that you are simply refusing to accept the real world, your questions seem to be already answered.

@Business Man - Nonsense. The fact that lower priced items exist doesn't equate to grocery stores, clothing stores, etc. offering products, at a reduced rate and at a loss, to a select population (food stamp shoppers don't get to take 50% off their bill). Those lower priced items are available to all shoppers without "qualification". As in food, clothing, etc., there's a huge variation in prices of homes and locations too - that's different than having to build a home at a loss in a specific location to satisfy a city requirement to provide low income housing. And healthcare providers are refusing Obamacare patients in droves. There are very few providers that accept ACA and Medicaid plans. I am surprised you're not aware of it.

Great, we get to pay for other peoples' homes along with our own. No doubt the bonds will increase our property tax, if passed.
And our property taxes and fees go up every year. What happened to economy of scale?
There is not space for garbage, parking, traffic. And the air is bad. Yet, the building continues and so does the deterioration of our quality of life.

Low-income housing isn't what little Mountain View needs. Leave that to the big cities like San Jose. Mountain View does its best to support the lower income earners shown by the approved $15 minimum wage ordinance for 2018 and community assistance such as the day worker center. Until 2030 We need to focus on increasing the housing supply to create home owners instead of allowing corporations to gobble up every last square foot. I do not want to see a future of apartments and lease-only options... the American Dream of home ownership is still alive but out of reach due to lack of inventory. The housing prices are not the issue because the housing market prices itself.

Charging developers higher fees is great. Tax the heck out of any developer who proposes more apartments. Impose new municipal taxes on parking space and please stop unethical increasing of municipal property taxes. Yes, by all means tax the corporations as much as just stop burdening current home owners through new municipal property tax and assessments.

Property assessments are seriously out-of-hand are soon worse. All you need is to understand the quietly updated rezoning map on the city website to see how screwed newer property owners near approved re-developments are. Assessments will be done in neighborhoods with re-develoments in order to align the curb appeal of the neighborhood with the new construction. The city is about to force existing home owners to improve their home values by updating curb appeal. Then their property is going to be re-assesed for the improvements leading to paying higher property taxes.

Why seems to have missed the whole difference between market value of homes and assessed value of homes. The latter is strictly controlled by Prop 13; assessed values do not go up by whim, but only in accord with the strict limits of Prop 13. Even additional property taxes, e.g., for school districts require a vote. Voters who live in the school district or other area of proposed tax get to vote but property owners who live in other areas (cities) don't.

If you build it. They will come. Like Needle Park, this will make Mountain View a Mecca for the poor - good luck with that.

Well, it was a nice dream. Say goodbye to the prospect of North Bayshore happening because Google's original vision is lost. City council continues to push pointless rhetoric for low-income housing and a family oriented Bayshore. City Council has creating so many new regulations that Google Campus is no longer a viable company plan. The approved 2019 reopening of Slater Elementary has contributed to the deviance of the original vision even further.

Signaled by a large land purchase and plans for a Downtown San Jose village, Google is likely making it their flagship office. San Jose has thousands of new housing units, less regulations and is already in the late stages of redevelopment. Not to mention the city is huge compared to little Mountain View. It is a viable option for Google's vision.

What a complete lack of focus from council who continues to push for pointless affordable housing when no home buyer or long-term resident is asking. The current rent-control ordinance is a straight joke. Leave these issues to the county please.

For now it looks to me Google Campus is out, Google Village is in.

That must be why Google is investing billions in new construction in the North Bayshore, including their first ever brand new, ground up Charleston East building.

I think Google likes Mountain View just fine. You know how you can tell? Because they keep spending money to make it better.

Right, you mean to say Google say they PLAN to invest millions into North Bayshore. So far Google has not built a single building. The only approved development is Charleston East, which is 6 months post approval and still we don't have any new information. Construction is stated to take 2 years, but how many years until construction actually begins? We don't even know if and how the environmental study will go. The reality is it could take years to even start construction.. and this is one of the smaller projects.

The North Bayshore Precise Plan is not approved and not a guarantee. Google could simply build East Charleston and make Downtown San Jose the HQ - a viable place for the HQ.

So it has been 6 months since Charleston East was approved. Have you heard anything new? Has the environmental study even begun. It makes me wonder, are we being lead on? Why would Google spend billions on land acquisition? Land doesn't depreciate and better they own it rather then their competitors.

Doug, perhaps I should have first asked readers to review the zoning map, Code of Ordinances and 2030 General Plan because I am not confusing appraisals with assessments. This is not a new tax and no I'm not speaking of the recent approval for Mountain View-Whisman.. this is to be an ordinance which forces home owners to improve their properties curb appeal - it doesn't need votes.

I'm going to assume you haven't made an offer on a Mountain View property in some time or else your agent didn't mention that in today's Mountain View almost every property appraises 20% below the purchase price. The whole point of my comment is the city plans to redevelop the senior townhomes on San Luis. The city may approve an ordinance to require neighbors to improve there home's curb appeal (exterior only) to align with the redevelopment. That could be repainting, replacing fixtures.... at owner expense. The assessor will account for the new home improvements and factor it into the assessed value. There are exclusions to homes purchased before a certain year and other exemptions, but no exemptions for newer home owners which two of the neighboring PUDs are. It is all outlinded in the Code of Ordinances which apparently no one cares to periodically review anymore.

Review the zoning map and ordinance paying attention to San Ramon Avenue. The assessor will review the comps, account for any improvements (city will force homes to increase curb appeal) then all the homes in the neighborhood are going to be required to update their curb appeal to align with the style of said development. Check the comps of the townhome sales.

20% purchase price should be is a typo. It should be at purchase price

For Why. comment above change municipal property taxes to ordinances

Google has pre-leased this project in North Bayshore, under construction as shown.
Broadreach (1625 Plymouth Street)
Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit for a new six story,
224,505 square foot office building and a 4.5 tier parking structure and a Heritage
Tree Removal permit for the removal of 15 Heritage trees and the re-location of five
Heritage trees on a vacant 5.15 acre project site. The project is located on the south
side of Plymouth Street between North Shoreline Boulevard and Alta Avenue.
 Status/Next Step(s): Approved by the City Council June 21, 2016. Under
construction.

The issue is the continuing lack of balance in Counci's approving corporate offices vs. housing. The Council needs to postpone approvals for offices and focus on ensuring that there's adequate housing for low and middle income people. More high end housing isn't needed. Would the city be the landlord for apartments bought and converted to condos? At a minimum such conversions should require that the units be upgraded by installing new toilets, soundproofing and insulation that many apartments currently lack.

People in Mountains view have spare rooms. The rental laws and are currently VERY unfriendly for small landlords, and in fact, are so lax that landlords can be at risk if they get a bum tenant. City Councel should consider no fee permits for garage conversions, and other small addons that would increase housing without massive building projects. In addition, there are many one bedroom apartments that could be converted to two studios if the city were amenable to supplying small property owners with affordable no impact permits to allow these units to be converted affordable and without a laundry list of building improvements.

But!! All this doesn't bring in cash for the city and is way too sensible. The city could be concerned about resultant lawsuits. Easy. Tenants occupying converted units can sign a waiter notifying of non standard permitting. I'm sure people would rather live in a small converted studio apartment than rent a room or live in their car. Permits that allow for additional bathrooms, and privacy in particular should be encouraged. Because those types of permits specifically address higher numbers of people using a home.

The thing is that with land going for $10 Million plus per acre, half of the cost
of a 3 story project is for the land. So if you take that as a baseline, when you
allow higher than 3 stories, the additional units are 50% cheaper to build,
since they don't use more land. There are some additional construction costs for
taller buildings.

Basically, adding a story to the building in exchange for affordable units
means that the 4th floor (or 5th) can add 20-25% of affordable units that rent
for 40-50% less than the others, AT NO COST TO THE DEVELOPER.

Respectfully, the problem with our affordable housing policies are their rush for quick term results.

Rent control and subsidies to set aside affordable housing units, these are symbolic at best, and at their worst, mask the real problem, as the crisis grows more severe.

The only thing that can help is new supply, supply that matches job growth. This means opening granny units for homeowners, even perhaps providing help with financing. The following company demoed at the Computer Museum their $45,000 modular granny unit: Web Link

This means making the cost of new construction less costly.

All the while working with developers to plan infrastructure to match growth. If new housing should subsidize anything with their development, it shouldn't be offsets in affordable housing units, but rather more investments in city infrastructure to make room for more people in a way that doesn't impact the quality of living for everyone.

There's only one answer to this problem, transporters. If we had transporters like StarTrek, people could live in Montana and work in Mountain View. There wouldn't be a housing crisis.

This is even smarter than Rent control which has eliminated all the private investor money from coming in to build in Mountain View.

You guys are a hoot in Mountain View! I love watching left coasters try to solve social problems. You have no idea what you'r doing unless you can steal some other rich guys money.. Ha Ha Where's the popcorn?

Hello Bob,

Do you live in Mountain View?

You give the impression you don't.

Then why do you claim you live in Cuesta Park?

Rent Control does not eliminate private investment, it does require smarter investments.

Well, this argument seems to indicate that it will soon be required to provide affordable housing in California. AB 1505 appears to be waiting signature by the Governor. THe bill was passed by the Assembly and the Senate in the last couple of days.

I have always criticized that gas stations only selling 93 octane gas at that price in a city will wind up with most drivers running out of gas. This seems to be a very good simile to housing. Thus, it should be mandatory that developers must integrate whole spectrum projects where 4 levels of quality of housing should be provided.

This is not in fact bad for developers because it creates reduced risks of economic losses during recessions. But investors only want to listen to the "rosy" economic numbers. The simple fact is we are so overdue an economic recession it is ridiculous. Given the $100 Billion losses in the last 2 storms in the southeast, that economic impact will eventually hit the entire U.S.

Good business people are already making their plans for losses. Look at Toy R Us, that bankruptcy is not a good indicator of the holidays coming up. And a bad holidays can make a terrible year.

Developers should not resist this change because in the long run, it will mitigate future losses.

Business man,

Thank you for the business update. I'll talk to my stock broker and convert everything into Gold based on your skyies falling economic knowledge.

By the way, no I don't live there and you know that and yes I own a substantial amount of property there. I'm the guy that knocks on your door Saturday morning and demands rent as I hand you a 3 day notice to pay or quit.

Bob has a transporter for just himself and he lives in Montana. Obviously.

Beam me up Scotty!!

I don't think there is intelligent life down here.
Let's dust this planet of the wanna bees and give power to the do bees.

Scotty this life form can't comprehend the basics of life survival. They think everything is found on a screen and can be ordered at Amazon.com

Maybe in a 100 million years a new species will form that has the ability to not only analyze but survive.

Sorry folks, we're doomed.

Boil real estate economics down to one thing: land valuation. "Affordable housing" in Mt. View is practically the most expensive housing in Mountain View. Governor Brown found out about "affordable housing" in San Francisco: unaffordable. Affordable health insurance ditto. I'm doing my best with the San Jose Property Rights Initiative (Go to Google Granicus). Silicon Valley is the world's all star brain team with comparable rents.
George Drysdale an economics teacher

I response to george Drysdale you said: “I'm doing my best with the San Jose Property Rights Initiative (Go to Google Granicus). “

After I did some searching, I never found the “San Jose Property Rights Initiative” page. I did find a letter submitted to the City of San Jose. But it appears that there is no action being coordinated by anyone. Of course, the letter appears to be submitted anonymously, using the name “George Drysdale”, with no return address or an email.

To me submitting a letter under an apparent pseudonym greatly increases my suspicions. It also tends to be less motivating regarding the public officials.

I am going to be very happy when the Governor signs AB 1505. For every investment there is an opportunity cost in the free market. It is good that AB 1505 is going to amend the law because of the case of Palmer v. City of Los Angeles. It is better because it is state wide.

Even if there is no rent controls in any city or town in California, the mandated affordable housing will in effect force rents to be reduced. Why, because more lower cost housing will be REQUIRED to be built. Unless the developers will simply refuse to build in the entire state of California. George, rent control is just one way of imposing lower rents, AB 1505 is almost just as bad as rent control, but worse because it is state wide. Oh well.

How about capping office space instead? Not capping office space expansion, but capping total office and commercial space at current levels. Let other communities grow and stop trying idiotically to pack everyone into the Bay Area.

@Cap

You don't get to just move in to the bay area and then declare no vacancy to everyone else. Why don't we remove the cap on your property taxes instead?

I think we should fire all city officials and redevelop city hall into a homeless shelter.

If you did that and took the 50 million they're going to get for affordable housing from the taxpayers, we could subsidize pot shops and open up a County services center for easy welfare registration and throw a huge block party on Castro street.

The homeless would come for miles to relocate. It would be beautiful!

@Business Man, in response to your comment:
"Even if there is no rent controls in any city or town in California, the mandated affordable housing will in effect force rents to be reduced. Why, because more lower cost housing will be REQUIRED to be built. Unless the developers will simply refuse to build in the entire state of California."

It seems to me they are likely to do exactly that, if they find that building here becomes substantially less lucrative than elsewhere. We got into this mess because our current laws and policies incentivize commercial development and disincentivize housing. What if we tackle it by incentivizing jobs-housing balance? Give money for infrastructure - roads, parks, water systems, flood protection, schools, libraries, etc etc - to cities that build enough housing for their jobs. Market forces then take care of housing costs and we can dispense with all these counterproductive efforts to legislate BMRs, rent control and so on.

"Maybe in a 100 million years a new species will form that has the ability to not only analyze but survive."

@Bob, I don't think it will take that long. The Very Clever Techies (TM) are hard at work building robots to take over more and more traditionally human tasks. Pretty soon they'll come to their final project - a robot that designs and builds new robots. Then humans will be entirely obsolete, and all our problems will vanish with us!

In response to Anke you said: “It seems to me they are likely to do exactly that, if they find that building here becomes substantially less lucrative than elsewhere. We got into this mess because our current laws and policies incentivize commercial development and disincentivize housing. What if we tackle it by incentivizing jobs-housing balance? Give money for infrastructure - roads, parks, water systems, flood protection, schools, libraries, etc etc - to cities that build enough housing for their jobs. Market forces then take care of housing costs and we can dispense with all these counterproductive efforts to legislate BMRs, rent control and so on.”

I hate to remind you that Costa-Hawkins was a state ban on rent control based on the promise that unfettered profit would incentivize housing and apartment development. In effect that was the basis of the act. I have already demonstrated that that it failed miserably. The working population increased 20% in California, but housing only increased 2% in the same period. What you are in fact stating is what already has happened. There is a coordinated effort to reduce development so that existing resources are provided inflated profits. The market has been designed to under-resource residential resources. This is described as supply-side economics.

Since the market had over 20 years of freedom since both Ellis and Costa Hawkins acts, and it did not result in the development that was promised. I simply state, that the industry chooses to manipulate the market. And it is just the industry’s fault it let it happen, it is no one else’s fault. The industry’s constant blaming the customer for its lack of efficiency and performance simply doesn’t work. Especially when it has a disproportionate influence on the state and local governments, BUT NOT THE CITIZENS. The industry simply has itself to blame.

Anke,

I'm not sure humans will become obsolete because we are our own creators with the exception to the almighty, may it be God or evolution, which is a debate I will forgo.

We are in charge now, to the extent of being human...wow this is getting deep and truly I'm afraid to defend humans after what I'm seeing in our America and the world?

O.k. back on track. Business man is right about the population growth of this state and the lack of housing but has missed the inequities of income growth amongst our fellow Californians.

We need to build housing and we need to see all Californians receive a reasonable income for work and be able to afford that housing.

I don't care if you're the lead engineer at Google or the guy flipping burgers, we all need to be able to survive here. We need each other or we fail together!

What scares me more than anything is that our government is using race, gender and income and religion as a tactic for us to attack one another to solve these problems.

THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER! We need each other as a diversified strength to solve the problems rather than attack each other to solve the problems we face as a City, County, State and most importantly a Nation.

Business Man is focused on income and wealth inequality and feels he must attack the Landlord because of that. He's wrong! He feels somehow he was left behind as so many feel but this is NOT THE SOLUTION!

Can't we all get along???

Right... Revoke prop 13 so only the rich can afford to live in the Bay Area. To paraphrase you, "if you aren't pulling down options and 10% raises every year, GTFO. Make way for the rich because we deserve your house more than you do."

Why is it that renters are so angry at Prop 13 and think it's a gift for landlords and homeowners?

Prop. 13 was an attack on our state governments out of control greed not on people's income.

Oh I get it, you're jealous...that someone got something you didn't.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

We don't need more housing, we need to stop building new office space. Don't believe me? Check out the rents for the new apartments that have come online in the last 3 years. Remember, new housing is not obligated to be rent controlled. Also, what good does it do to build housing for one person while you're building offices that will bring at least 3 to 4 more people into town?

During the 10 years I've lived here, the Council has promised less expensive housing. What we've gotten is more people living on the street and in Campers along Rengstorff and now Shoreline ( so do we count that as a promise kept? ).

It is ridiculous to think that any amount of housing will lead to lower prices as long as the Council is permitting and encouraging the rapid construction and expansion of offices. The only thing that would lead to lower housing costs in the near future would be for jobs to be relocated out of the Bay Area and/or a significant net loss of jobs in the area. (For those who love to criticize me, NO I am not wishing for this to happen or recommending this, I am merely stating a fact). However, what I would recommend, as I have for the last 6 years, is a moratorium on any new office construction until the rental market reaches equilibrium. While it would not fix the problem overnight, it would eventually lead to more stable and possibly lower rents in the long term. Anyone who says there is a quick fix is lying to you. It took years of fast-tracking new offices to get us into this mess, so it will take years of not building them to get us out.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

In response to Bob you said: “Business Man is focused on income and wealth inequality and feels he must attack the Landlord because of that. He's wrong! He feels somehow he was left behind as so many feel but this is NOT THE SOLUTION!”

I cannot understand how you came to this opinion. All I have been doing is demonstrating that promises made were not followed through. Costa Hawkins was a promise to the State that free market would provide affordable housing due to unfettered profit. When the population increased 20% with only a 2% increase in housing inventory, this was a proven failure of the free market approach.

I have only demonstrated that these investors are responsible for their own actions, nothing more. I understand that for your position you consider it an attack because you believe that it is everyone else’s fault for the problem. But I simply point out that Alan Greenspan would argue that it is the investors fault for any failures on their own behalf. This is the definition of “Moral Hazard”.

I do not advocate that the landlords should not be able to make profits. My approach though is that those profits cannot be subsidized by placing fiscal cost on of poor judgment or management on anyone else than those responsible. For the last 20 years, the practice has been that whenever the landlord’s cash flow profit margin goes below a certain percentage, the landlord simply raises rents to make up the difference, without actually improving the properties an equal proportion.

If a landlord or investor wants a guaranteed return on investment, investing in real estate, of any type is not the correct approach. The Financial Crisis of 2007-8 was the relevant proof of this. An investment that guarantees a rate of return is called a bond. Bonds are designed to guaranty a negotiated return on investment, and on top of that, their risks are far smaller.

What landlords refuse to admit, is that they were “promised” financial rewards for their investment, even though the market after 2007-8 demonstrated how risky it was to do so. This is not an attack, it is a history lesson. It is not “Class Warfare” it is simple common sense.

This reality not only applies to “Landlords” but to any investor in any markets. “Landlords” are not uniquely subject to any more risks than any other business. Market regulations can be made at any time to any market. So do not mischaracterize my comments.

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.