Foothill campus already is nearly ruined by over-development. If FHDA wants to put teacher housing there, I suggest that they tear down the new, unnecessary "Administrators' Taj Mahal" that they have covered Parking Lot 7 with, and replace it with high density teacher utility & dorm apartments --- with two stories of underground 24/7 teacher only parking. Foothill has destroyed too many parking spaces and open land already. As a 2nd choice, the Foothill Football stadium is a huge piece of land being wasted on a vicious sport that destroys players' brains and bodies. Why not tear it down and use it for housing & parking?

Most bureaucrats (and politicians) are mostly about advancing their own interests. Public service is a sideline. And we wonder how we ended upon with a Donald Trump as President.

Poor colleges can’t attract good teachers. It isn’t because of housing, its because schools don't pay a decent salary, they don’t offer security, schools have no interest in teacher retention. They fire long term teachers after dangling tenure for decades, then hire adjunct teachers for one off classes. This alliws schools to avoid provuding benefits. Now they want subsidized housing for teachers so they can retain a pool of desperate teachers, available at school’s whim? To hire and fire at will... ridiculous!

Why should taxpayers pay so schools can hire and fire at will. Offering teachers discount housing is a one time quick fix. If the schools continue do nothing to retain teachers, now we’ve subsidized housing, the school’s fired the teachers and we’re back were we started.

The whole thing is ruduculous, REALLY.

People, DO THE RIGHT THING! IT solves a lot of problems!

Shower in the men's or women's gym at Foothill. Set up cots in the basketball court or use one's faculty office.

Simple. Done deal.

Others have it far worse.

Did the Board read the results of their own survey? Taxpayers do not support paying for teacher housing. $1,000/month - ridiculous rate - that's what people pay for Section 8 housing and the faculty at FHDA are making far more money than that. Give them job security and fair benefits along with equitable salary.

So taxpayers should now pay for housing for a select portion of the population? Should we also pay for subsidized housing for nurses, x-ray techs, etc? We need them to care for our aging boomer population. Does anybody think they can better afford to live here? What about the plumbers? How can they afford to live here? What happens when there are no more plumbers in the area to fix our pipes? Obviously I could go on and on but this new hair-brained scheme of education administrators getting into the real estate business is ridiculous. They'll need to hire a whole department just to administrate it. And good luck getting anybody to move out (and make room for the newbies) if they're only paying $1,000/month of rent. Wouldn't it make more sense to raise their salaries? And let them commute just as everybody else in the valley has to do?

@What's next

Regardless of the fact that teachers aren't being paid what they should be, raising salaries is not a solution to the housing crisis. As long as the supply of housing is constrained, the price will keep rising and whomever is willing to pay the most will win. More housing needs to get built.

@YIMBY - yes, there is a housing shortage but it's a problem for everybody that works in the valley, not just teachers. Building housing on the taxpayers dole for a select population of labor is inequitable - lots of workers in the area make less money than teachers and must cope with the same shortage. It's also impractical as educational institutions are ill prepared to develop and administrate real estate. It would become a high cost fiasco. The local cities can't even administrate their BMRs without screwing up (some of those who've received affordable housing have moved into other homes and operate their BMRs as profitable investment properties).

Building more housing/ increasing density is creating its own set of problems. Remember that when y'all complain about traffic, accidents, traffic violations, etc, that those are a direct result of the increased density/ frustrated commuters. The answer is for the city councils to stop approving increased development of the tech companies. EVERYBODY that works in the area that can't afford housing needs to decide to either live house-poor, commute or move somewhere else. That's life...

Not building high density housing here means people commuting in, which means traffic, accidents, traffic violations, etc.

You either need to build more housing in general, subsidize housing for specific professionals like teachers, or watch as it becomes harder and harder to get people to fulfill these roles when the cost of living is so high.

Couldn't the Foothill-De Anza CC District subsidize RVs for some of their instructors?

That way they could simply park on campus and never be late or have to deal with traffic. The RVs could also serve as their private offices.

I've noticed many RVs parked throughout Mountain View so it is not an uncommon practice to alleviate housing shortages.