Great 9850 apartments. Rent is a key way to keep people poor. They will never be able to save up for a down payment on a house.
I wonder how much the "sheparding and approving" cost the taxpayers in terms of real tax dollars.

This is incredible progress to address the scarcity of housing in the area. This reduces traffic by allowing people to live closer to work, as well as decreasing the cost of housing by increasing supply. Every extra house, condo and apartment helps. Good job.

I'd be VERY angry if this special interest group were praising me. I'd ask them to cease and desist. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

@frisbee

You are completely wrong.

This will add More traffic increase pollution and crime. People won’t be closer to work, nobody keeps jobs more than a year in Silicon Valley so people will still be going everywhere. Since it’s all short term rental it will be more people who don’t care about community or Mt View itself.Since there is no good public transit people will take their cars everywhere. I keep seeing the argument about traffic flows etc all the studies are such BS. More people stuff in an area equal more traffic and more pollution and more cramming in everywhere. All it does is destroy all the lives of actual citizens to want to live here.

This is total crap, there should be no new housing how about a new school or park instead?

@Member

Exactly! Really, after you moved here, that was the perfect amount of people. They should have capped the population right then. But then ugh, all these other people just had to move in after you did, crowding the place up and making it so much worse for residents!

@yimby

That’s a useful post, not. Been here longer than you, Just watch the corrupt city council destroy the quality of life and sell out to developers. Allowing illegal RV (which by law shouldn’t be here but they don’t enforce the law) violent crime is up, congestion is up, quality of schools are down. they just tax away and make bs proposals not connected to reality about parking , traffic and controlled growth.

@Member

Oh, I'm sure you've been here quite a long time! You probably have a property tax bill low enough to prove it.

Good to know that people who don't live here are praising us, meanwhile there isn't enough space in schools and people can't leave their houses due to traffic. Mountain View isn't the dumping grounds for housing nobody else wants to build. The City Council needs to start seeking the praise of residents, not developer-funded special interest groups.

Councilmember Rosenberg is wise to talk about the human factor. It is inhumane to deny people housing opportunity and expect them to suffer long commutes.

Robyn, three things:

1. 60% of Mountain View rents. It is a perfectly valid way to live one's life.

2. It is better for everyone if someone who rents can rent a place close to work.

3. When there's a shortage of rental housing supply, renters pile into single-family housing as roommates, taking those homes off the market. Adding apartments as competition in the rental market will actually free up some of those homes, adding opportunity and checking the price for people looking to buy.

Those 9850 apartments were approved?? but will never be built!!
I love when city leaders have parades and confetti and wave from their convertibles going down main street.
What a bunch of fools they must think of us:)))

In response to Howard you said:

“Those 9850 apartments were approved?? but will never be built!!”

You gave me an “AHA” moment. No one ever discusses the fact that “local governments” probably approve hundreds of apartment units to be built. BUT, the developers then say, NO, we aren’t going to build. Hasn’t the criticism been that “local governments” get in the way? I of course tried to get some information regarding this, but found very little reporting regarding it. What I did find was this report (Web Link ) which a part of the story said:

“In Inglewood, Calif., a sprawling, overgrown lot two blocks from city hall frustrates senior citizens who were promised a state-of-the-art housing complex more than four years ago. Although the city invested $2 million in HUD funds, the developer doesn’t have the financing to move forward.”

Perhaps because if anyone asks this question to City Governments, the governments are too embarrassed to admit they get played by the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers empty “promises” regarding such projects. You said:

“I love when city leaders have parades and confetti and wave from their convertibles going down main street. “

I have to agree with you on this, the old saying is correct “Don’t count your chickens until their hatched comes to mind. Again, you never seem to see the results when after projects are approved, the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers, attempt to alter the plans or attempt to extort more benefits for themselves. You said:

“What a bunch of fools they must think of us:)))”

In light of reality, I cannot disagree with you. The whole situation is insane. The projects seek approval “BEFORE” they actually are given a “GREEN LIGHT” to actually be built. Howard, do you also agree that no project should be proposed without having the commitment of it being built? How can this industry realistically expect itself to provide adequate housing when it does not properly arrange the plans and funding prior to even going forward to get a “project” approved?

But the most important question that needs answering is this: What is the proportion of projects approved where the projects are actually built? The same situation occurred in my older home town, a very small one, where it took about 5 years to approve of a new mixed use town center, and when it was finally approved, the residential building group pulled out.

To me, the idea that a local government will undergo perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars regarding the costs of getting projects approved, then the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers jump ship at the last moment is very ugly. I am surprised that no one proposes a law so that if that situation occurs, the private landlords, investors, real estate, and developers are liable for all lost cost endured by that government must be recompensed.

Of course, you have the right to disagree with this idea.

Businessman,

The problem with this story is that it is nothing more than a photo opp for Mountain View Politicians. This will never be built and if something is built..it will be very different than what their advertising here. Remember..money owns the day and office space is the pay!

In response to you said:

“The problem with this story is that it is nothing more than a photo opp for Mountain View Politicians.”

I cannot disagree with you there. These are people breaking their arms patting themselves on the back, nothing more you also said:

“This will never be built and if something is built..it will be very different than what their advertising here.”

Again, the reality is your right. There is going to be a lot of developer dictated alterations. The truth is the “planning” is not performed in the process before the projects are approved. You finally said:

“ Remember..money owns the day and office space is the pay!”

Now that statement is one I will not agree with. But unfortunately due to the corruption in the California/US government system, currency for some reason is a measure of liberty. It is not. Currency is only the means that commerce performs transactions rather than “bartering”. Nothing more. The constitution does not entitle any protection on currency, LAND yes, CASH no.

Businessman,
Do you really believe The US government is not corrupt?
The politicians that encompass Congress and the Senate both Democrat and Republican are as dirty as the day is long in summer!!

The Judicial branch is even more corrupt because of the attorneys continually reinterpreting the laws laid down by our Forefathers in the Constitution.
I can't believe Americans let this go on???

THANK GOD FOR DONALD TRUMP!!
I am worried that 8 years won't be enough and who will step in his shoes at the end of his term.

Sorry, I'm agreeing with you but on a hyperlevel.

Hello everyone:

It appears to be now official.

The Costa Hawkins Repeal initiative is now on the ballot seen here

Web Link

So if these homes turn out to be rented, they will likely be subject to rent control, since the latest polls seriously indicate that Costa Hawkins repeal will succeed. And the City Citizens in Mountain View WILL get CSFRA extended to the units or homes currently blocked by the Costa Hawkins law.

I wonder if the project will in fact move forward at this time. Many projects like this are given local approval, but then are cancelled by the developer after the approval.

It just appears that the statewide initiative is about to throw a lot of uncertainty in this situation.