The MVWSD is a Land Rich organization that can trade some of that land - for other government (City) land. Put Teacher housing just for MVWSD teachers with rent and ground lease (for sale) restrictions. Only for local teachers, no stealing teachers from our relatively revenue-poor district [that's what MV-LA and PAUSD do for some of our middle and elementary school teachers]

The only way MVWSD can make "teacher retention" work with housing as a carrot - is to control the string and stick holding the carrot!

Otherwise - MVWSD teachers, if residing in Palo Alto teacher housing - will just try to become PAUSD teachers, or MV-LA teachers residing in their Palo Alto teacher housing.

PAUSD and especially MV-LA use their revenue wealth wisely. They beat the MVWSD salary schedules by a mile and will continue to do so

Simitian's "Palo Alto proposal" is good for PAUSD, and Good for MV-LA, and may be Good for Foothill-De Anza. It is foolish for MVWSD.

Convert all schools to housing with no room for students. Retire all teachers. Cancel all pensions. Re-elect Donald Trump. Transfer all wealth to Vladimir Putin. Just a few scattered thoughts.

A total of sixty units of teacher housing for five school districts? That makes twelve lucky teachers per district. Mountain View Whisman has 303 teachers, so that means 291 (96%) would get no benefit from this project. I support programs that will help our district retain excellent teachers, but dollar for dollar, why is this proposal preferable to giving all teachers a housing allowance?

We really need to support teacher housing - especially for key teaching positions like special education which has immense turnover that is very damaging to this very sensitive community of students. MVWSD has a lot of land and I wish they could have a much larger scale project in place - but something is better than nothing. I hope that MVWSD Board takes a look at this proposal - and if they aren't happy - please come up with their own plan for affordible teacher housing! I dream of a thriving multi-use project with housing for teachers, public employees, low income and disabled residents - but I am a bit nuts for still being hopeful.

While everyone in the valley is trying to solve the housing issue for talented workers, and the district is no different, except the MVWSD owns land. So why not allow teacher owned tiny homes on school lots. These wouldn't be RVs, but "cute" moveable homes.

Each school site has field space that is not used, that can be fenced off. I've heard teachers report they would leap at a chance to buy their own tiny home to park on district land if ever given a chance, in order to build equity.

Tiny homes are ideal since they pack a punch in density, don't cost the district other than land prep, building an enclosure, teachers have a strong resale market for tiny homes (ADU and their movable nature makes them sellable).

Furthermore, tiny homes on school sites don't add to traffic. School parking lots are largely empty at night, and teachers would already be on their work site.

This along with loan assistance (Landed) could provide a diverse package of solutions to retain teachers at low obligation and cost to the district.

Trustees voted “to find sources of funding...“. What the heck does that mean? Where will this money be “found” and what gets cut as a result? While my kids have to move out of state to afford housing my tax dollars will be spent to provide 12 lucky teachers per district affordable housing so they don’t have to commute. This is really dumb.

"Find sources of funding" no doubt means new taxes to subsidize the effort!

I find it strange that other countries consider the teaching profession valuable and pay their educators accordingly. In this country, grade-school teachers are typically not well paid. If they were, we wouldn't be talking about affordable housing for them, but maybe instead talk about affordable housing for families of students to live near schools.

The myth of "affordable housing" is just that --- a very cruel myth for ambitious politicians and well-meaning fools. Housing today is Not Even Remotely "affordable". This is just a huge political problem to decide who gets stuck with the un-affordable costs --- taxpaying residents, the school district, or taxpayers of the school district or the County. Just make sure that is not on prime MV real estate or in prime 'hoods. We have far too much high-rise development on quality land in MV already. Finally, my advice to MV --- don't deal with the County. Keep this problem under local control.

Something taxpayers should be aware of is that affordable housing is not monitored after it’s sold. A person can qualify for the BMR housing then in a subsequent year increase their income, get married, etc and nobody in authority is the wiser. It’s a boon for the recipient. Some even move out of their affordable housing and use it as a rental property (at market rates) so a further windfall from the income. Affordable housing should never be available for purchase, only for rent and even then recipients should be required to provide yearly tax returns in order to remain in the property.

Also, providing affordable housing for a select sector of the population is discriminatory- it should be equally available to all whose incomes qualify. Nobody likes commuting but it’s a fact of life if you live in the Bay Area. Teachers aren’t more special than other employees.

rookie cop in Mountain View makes 100k+, a school teacher should too Pay the teachers a living wage!!

@William Hutchens is correct in my opinion. Keep the control local. Keep it under MVWSD control with MVWSD rules. For rentals that is very clear - you a MVWSD with limited family income (that can be checked in real application) then step on up for the affordable housing [year-to-year lease]! You not a MVWSD employee anymore - thanks for your service to MVWSD, hope you find a home in Palo Alto or Los Altos to go along with your higher salary!

In Santa Clara USD, in San Mateo Community College District, and in Stanford University and University of Santa Cruz - teacher/faculty/staff housing has land deed restrictions. This has worked well for recruitment and retention,. The best match is SCUSD if you talk about K-12 teacher rental housing on public land.

Government land of MVWSD includes 10 acres immediately adjacent to Cooper (City) Park. That land can be traded for City owned vacant land in other parts of Mountain View. SAVECOOPERPARK.org is happy, some future (moderate income?) teachers of MVWSD are happy, administration of MVWSD is happy with a better reacher recruitment and retention ratio.

Gov. Brown is happy - more teachers walking to school, less teachers driving to school from long distances away. The Bay Area Air Quality District is happy "because transportation is such a large source of emissions, some neighborhoods have (carbon) footprints three of four times larger than others". "The research, published online, can be used to target policies and programs to help similar communities speed up their adoption of carbon-efficient" policies. Merc News Sept 13, page one story.

"Think globally, act locally," Jones said.

It's heartening to know that our community supports efforts to help teachers in our districts. However, it should be noted that support staff at these schools and colleges make far less than faculty (with no option to take overload classes to make even more). If teachers and instructors are being considered for such affordable housing opportunities, so should school support staff for without whom these schools could not function.

From EdWeek, "From Teacher Villages to Tiny Homes: Housing Benefits for Educators" Web Link

Excerpts:
"Tiny houses could be the right fit: The tiny-house movement has been gaining ground in recent years, as smaller houses—up to about 400 square feet and often movable—are known for being more cost-efficient, eco-friendly, and affordable. The Vail Unified school district in Arizona is planning to build up to 24 tiny (and "luxury," according to the associate superintendent) homes for its teachers on district land."

"Teachers Village is a mixed-use community that stretches for five blocks in downtown Newark, N.J. It includes charter schools, a day-care facility, and tutors. 'Teachers' villages' try to offer more than just living: Community spaces, shopping, and dining are just a few of the incentives some districts are trying to provide with help from developers. In Newark, N.J., a teachers' village erected by the developer RBH Group includes three charter schools, a day-care center, more than 200 rental units geared toward regular public and charter school teachers, and such extras as spare classrooms, a gym, and retail. The group has similar future projects underway in Hartford, Conn., and in Chicago."

We don't need "tiny houses" for teachers. Build some normal apartments and stop trying to appease NIMBYs.