Enough is enough!
It is wrong to ignore the rights and intentions of current owners and residents.
Let people work remotely or stagger shifts.
The constant influx is overburdening infrastructure, resources and people's frayed nerves.

You are right Robyn. More jobs should be created where there is room for adjacent housing. Then, new employees could walk to work. Building near a bus stop would only help a worker get to another bus stop - not to work. Where is there space? Not much in Mountain View. But plenty in San Jose and unincorporated county territory. But wait Robyn. Do not think for a moment that the developers and CEOs behind SB 827 are done. They are just preparing for their next attack on existing residents. As to whether your local "leaders" care about existing residents (other than themselves), you should read their "human rights" resolution which asserts that giving any preference to existing residents is a form of, get this, "bigotry" they call "nativism." It is that kind of bull from jackasses that produced a revolt that has proved to be revolving. Of course, I refer to the "election" of Donald Trump. Local representatives should be most concerned about current residents. Local representatives who think they also must stand up equally for humans in Syria or China or on the far side of the moon should move there. Certainly, we need to STOP ELECTING THEM.

It's a great day for the landed gentry.

Land is limited. But there is plenty of land elsewhere in the county, the Bay Area and the State. You do not need to ruin existing neighborhoods with "stack and pack" housing designed to subsidize giant corporations and their executives.

@Batman

The jobs are here, the ports are here, the airports are here, and the universities are here. We don't need more suburban sprawl, and we don't need to create an entirely separate city to try and recreate all these things just so your neighborhood isn't ruined by a 5 story building.

Time is against you here. This is a generational issue, and every day there are more of us and fewer of you. There will come a day the stranglehold you have on the ladder you pulled up behind you will give way, and that housing will be built. All you're doing is ensuring that the legacy you leave behind and how history will view you will be one of rotten selfishness and greed. When it comes time for the generations after me to need a place to live, I'll make sure to support it for them, and I'll think back to people like you, crowing about "stack and pack" housing when my generation needed it and as rents climbed past $2500 a month for a simple 1 bedroom apartment.

I posted about preserving the quality of living here and in the region and offered an alternative to the "stack and pack" greedy developers and corporate profiteers want to make still more money: Add housing next to new job centers. Include infrastructure including schools. The response from "Yimby" is all about what "Yimby" and his "generation" want. Why not call Yimby YIM-ME or just ME ME? He is proposing nothing for his backyard. He is just offering to ruin other people's backyards and neighborhoods so he can own something in Mountain View instead of San Jose.

Both you and Robyn talk about "preserving quality of life," which has no concern for anyone but the people who got here first and pulled the ladder up behind themselves. Why not just go full Trump and start chanting "Build the Wall"?

Your generation may be the first modern one to leave a world behind worse than the one they got. It's not too late, though.

Feel free to buy a house in Mountain View or Los Altos or Los Altos Hills or Atherton. Feel free. But it won't be free. Because unlike the countries from which you may have fled, this one has private property including land that is purchased. The land is subject to restrictions justified by the public interest. Those restrictions may change. Feel free to keep contending that highrises overlooking every backyard in every city is justified by the public interest. But, if you want to live, don' t hold your breath until you get your way. And, by the way, you might want to listen to a song from years ago. It asks a basic question. It may help you out. The song asks: DO YOU KNOW THE WAY TO SAN JOSE? Check Google Maps.

The disdain you have for the people left behind you is truly horrifying. Previous generations used to care about the future, but people like you make it clear that you're the true "Me" generation.

Don't worry, though, we'll clean up the mess you've made and leave something better for our kids and grandkids.

"The land is subject to restrictions justified by the public interest"

Decades ago it was in the public interest to make room and build housing so your generation would have a place to live. Instead of carrying that forward, your generation insists that it's in the public interest for you to enrich yourselves on inflated housing values from an artificial housing shortage; crow about stack and pack and neighborhood character; and push the next generation away from established job centers and mass transit instead of making room for them, too. History is not going to be kind to you, the generational aberration that sucked everything dry for your own gain instead of building upon it for the future.

But Yimby. What is your proposal you say is justified by the public interest? SB 827?

Absolutely. It's ridiculous that residents are fighting higher density housing, during a housing crunch, around mass transit that's already been built and invested in, and while road traffic is continually getting worse. It's not in the public interest to have low density around Caltrain stops, it's in the personal interest of specific homeowners who own housing nearby. SB 827 made complete sense in this regard. A similar bill to SB 827 is what will eventually be passed. It's going to come down to voter demographics changing as boomers age out and more of Gen Z ages in, and that's already started.

You favor destroying residential neighborhoods with SB 827. Got it. And thanks for the warning that some version of SB 827 still is going to pass.

Yes, SB 827 will destroy residential neighborhoods by...building more houses? Wait, that can't be right. Are you sure you were reading the right bill?

Highrise condos and apartments towering over single family homes (and potentially with no parking for the new residents) would ruin those neighborhoods. You read it right. Maybe take English (as a second language, if needed) so that you might also understand it. But some homeowners cpuld benefit from such a change in the law by selling their houses to developers or others planning highrises. Go with that "LOL."

@Batman

"Highrise condos and apartments towering over single family homes (and potentially with no parking for the new residents) would ruin those neighborhoods. You read it right. Maybe take English (as a second language, if needed) so that you might also understand it"

Your personal individual preference for low density single-family homes should not override good regional housing and transit planning. This is an absolutely perfect example of the unrepentant selfishness that has caused this housing crisis. You are so wrapped up in your own make-believe problems that while others are actually suffering, you're convinced that the real problem here is that you might have to see more 5 story buildings, woe is you. People like you are never going to see the bigger picture, the costs you're externalizing onto everyone else, or have any hint of empathy that goes beyond the walls of your home.

Wow, Batman, you couldn't resist tossing in some light racism there with the ESL remark. It's strange how you consider the people living in the neighborhood, in those apartments, to be "ruining the neighborhood," but I think the puzzle pieces are starting to fall into place.

JUst FYI:

There is a report the signatures are complete on the Costa Hawkins repeal Ballot as of today. (Web Link


Here is where the real game begins.

If so, there is very little chance of the City Ballot to pass. All tenants will vote against it.

@YIMBY

One day you're going to wake up and realize that you are just a pawn of corporate america. These large corporations and developers don't actually care about providing housing for you. No-one cares about providing housing for you, except you. Corporations and developers are simply chasing the dollars. It's called market forces.
No-one in any generation built housing for altruistic reasons (except for project housing). Developers build housing to make money. They want to build high density because it is cheaper for them. They'd preferably like to build it without garages because the economics are even better.
When the market takes a downturn this will no doubt will all be made clear to you. (You probably only have to wait a couple of years). Last time I checked the USA was still a dyed in the wool capitalist country. Most of us who are a little older rationally expected people to act in their own self-interest. We did not expect to live close to where we worked, to own a home at 28 or to expect others to sacrifice for us. We worked hard, lived in suboptimal conditions, and saved until we could get a toe in a housing market (and not in the peninsula housing market).

Wait, you mean to tell me that housing doesn't just appear from good thoughts and intentions? That a developer doesn't care about giving me housing personally? That housing is actually a market, and developers build housing for money in response to housing demand, and charge people money to buy that housing based on available supply? My God, what a revelation!

Are you done? Good. NO ONE is arguing for any of the ridiculous scrawl that you slapped out of your keyboard. Of course all of these mechanisms are fueled by money.

What's caused the housing crisis is that self-interested homeowners have for decades pushed for public policies that enact zoning restrictions and prevent new housing supply that should be getting built in response to the massive demand there is for it now. This is a problem that is entirely political.

Previous generations did not go out of their way to block new housing in the same way that your generation has been doing for decades. Ever since the mid 70s zoning in California has trended towards capping building heights and restricting the number of new housing units built. Housing construction has slowed considerably in that time from what it was decades earlier.

You pulled the ladder up is what you did. No one begrudges you for saving up to buy a house. You're begrudged for then going on to make sure no one else after you could do the same. California is now a majority renter state with a financially crushing housing crisis because of people like you.

Dear god here we go with the ladder again. Did anyone see a ladder when they moved here? I didn't see a ladder. No one gave me a hand, or the key to the city. And there most certainly wasn't a ladder!

Although newspapers across California reported that SB 527 "died" in committee on April 17, an examination of the State Senate website reveals something else. Evidently when the press left, the 13-member committee voted unanimously in favor of "reconsideration" and has passed the bill along to another committee for hearing on April 25. So it appears that money talks after all and existing residents remain in the line of fire.

"Housing construction has slowed considerably in that time from what it was decades earlier. "

SO not true! A lot less housing was built in the 50s and 60s decades than the most recent decade. Numbers are verifiable through the census.

The issue is that jobs are being added at a much much higher rate than ever before. Residents haven't been pushing for public policy to restrict housing. They're too busy working to be pushing public policy. The zoning was created long ago. The only people pushing for zoning changes are developers

@@YIMBY

Web Link

"Between 1980 and 2010, construction of new housing units in California’s coastal metros was low by national and historical standards. During this 30–year period, the number of housing units in the typical U.S. metro grew by 54 percent, compared with 32 percent for the state’s coastal metros. Home building was even slower in Los Angeles and San Francisco, where the housing stock grew by only around 20 percent. As Figure 5 shows, this rate of housing growth along the state’s coast also is low by California historical standards. During an earlier 30–year period (1940 to 1970), the number of housing units in California’s coastal metros grew by 200 percent."

"Over two–thirds of cities and counties in California’s coastal metros have adopted policies (known as growth controls) explicitly aimed at limiting housing growth. Many policies directly limit growth—for example, by capping the number of new homes that may be built in a given year or limiting building heights and densities. Other policies indirectly limit growth—for example, by requiring a supermajority of local boards to approve housing projects. Research has found that these policies have been effective at limiting growth and consequently increasing housing costs. One study of growth controls enacted by California cities found that each additional growth control policy a community added was associated with a 3 percent to 5 percent increase in home prices."

"Cities and counties often require housing projects to go through multiple layers of review prior to approval. For example, a project may require independent review by a building department, health department, fire department, planning commission, and city council. Each layer of review can increase project approval time. Additional complexity in review processes also creates avenues for concerned residents to slow building or reduce its size and scope, as the story in the nearby box shows. One survey of city and county officials nationwide suggests that communities in California’s coastal metros take about two and a half months longer, on average, to issue a building permit than in a typical California inland community or the typical U.S. metro (seven months compared to four and a half months). Divergence from the rest of the country was more significant in some communities—for example, typical approval time was over a year in San Francisco and over eight months in the City of Los Angeles. If a project required a change in local zoning laws—as is common among large projects—approval time was much longer. The average time to approve a rezoning was just under a year in California’s coastal metros, about three months longer than in a typical California inland community or a typical U.S. metro. Researchers have linked additional review time to higher housing costs. A study of jurisdictions in the Bay Area found that each additional layer of independent review was associated with a 4 percent increase in a jurisdiction’s home prices."

Awfully quiet in the face of actual data.

As noted above, the 13 politicians on the State Senate's transportation and housing committee voted on April 17 (evidently after the press had left) for "reconsideration" SB 827. So the bill remains alive this year - right now - and could be passed by the State Senate and the Assembly as the press continues to congratuate itself for incorrectly reporting that the bill had died on the initial committee vote. See Bill status online. SB 827 would then go to the Governor. If signed into law, it could be challenged by a referendum petition and end up on the state ballot. If not, then developers would proceed to ruin urban and suburban neighborhoods with residential highrises - with no onsite parking - on and near every street that has or gets frequent bus service. Here is a better way: do not build or greatly expand jobs in areas without room for adjacent new housing. In Santa Clara County, that means building should occur in San Jose and south county. Yimbys, of course, who want housing in YOUR BACK YARD will continue to pursue SB 827 and its kind. And politicians in need of money to keep or better their offices are all ears and ready with their rhetoric and accomplices. Vladimir Putin may be buying into the scheme as we chat.

Five stories is not a high-rise, and insisting so doesn't mean the sky is falling, Chicken Little.

@LOL. When you locate Silicon Valley on a map and pay a visit to Mountain View, you will not find many 5-story residential buildings - none right next door to single-family homes. Mountain View homeowners did not buy here to have 5-story buildings overshaddowing their yards. But thanks for your input - from the viewpoint of an outsider who prefers writing over reading and badgering over thinking.

I've lived in Mountain View longer than you have, Batman. Thanks for attacking people rather than ideas, though, since it shows just how little of an argument you have. In particular, I don't remember seeing in my deed or the city charter that there would never be five-story buildings in the city. Even then, they still aren't high-rises.