This is a perfect example that Costa Hawkins is a failure.

Simply put, politics is influenced by money, lots of it.

Proposition 10 provides that the citizens have the ultimate power over housing poicy in the future based on the text of the porposition found here:

"Section 7. Amendment and Repeal

Pursuant to Article II, Section 10, Subdivision ( c ), of the California Constitution, the Legislature may amend this Act to further its purposes by a statute passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the Journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, signed by the Governor. No statute restricting or eliminating the powers that have been restored by this Act to a city, county, or city and county to establish residential rental rates shall become effective unless approved by a majority of the electorate."

Simply put, MONEY has BOUGHT the State, County, and Local governments. We must remove the corruption by establishing that the voters have the ultimate choice.

The City Council does not appear able to increase affordable housing in Mountain View. Every time the developers make a promise to provide affordable housing, at the last minute, after getting approval for the prior promise, they erase the majority of the affordable units.

THIS IS THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG, TRAP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AFTER THEY GIVE INTIAL APPROVAL.

THE VOTER MUST TAKE ACTION.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

In your case, if you had any money, plus business experience and you tried your nonsense in the real world, you would be bankrupt very fast.

You should just be honest and say what the real motivation is behind all your posts.

You despise all landlords and you want to punish them every which way you can and be dammed the consequences too fewer and more expensive housing.

In response to @TBM you said:

Posted by @TBM

“Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”

Yes that is correct. You said:

“In your case, if you had any money, plus business experience and you tried your nonsense in the real world, you would be bankrupt very fast.”

INTERESTING, YOU DO NOT PROVIDE ANY IFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS MY OBSERVATION? You said:

“You should just be honest and say what the real motivation is behind all your posts.”

MY POST WAS CLEAR. YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE TO ARGUE AGAINST IT. You said:

“You despise all landlords and you want to punish them every which way you can and be dammed the consequences too fewer and more expensive housing.”

I DON’T DESPISE LANDLORDS, MY NEIGHBOR LANDLORD NEXT DOOR IS AWESOME.

I DON’T ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT LANDLORDS ARE ENTITLED TO MAKING A PROFIT WITHOUT SKILLFUL MANAGEMENT.

LANDLORDS EITHER DICTATE THAT THE PUBLIC SUBSIDIZE THEIR PROFITS BY HAVING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GIVE THEM GIFTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OR CHOOSE TO ONLY BUILD PREMIUM LUXURY HOUSING.

[Post removed due to poster being banned for repeated violations of terms of use]

Is SummerHill the only developer we can go with? Seems they always get what they want. Never what MV wants.

Out of curiosity, what does CH stand for in "CH repeal"? Also TBM's typing speed is impressive and format resembles old times SQL.

What is the difference between flats and apartments? The article mentions both are being developed

I assume apartments for rent, flats for sale, but what is condos in this article? I live in townhouse typo condo, but condos can be flats as well.

The article didn't mention adequate on-site parking to avoid occupants clogging local streets and making it difficult for other residents to park in in front of their homes. What has MV done to make sure that Summerhill must include REALISTIC, and not just pie-in-the-sky idealistic provisions for on-site parking? I seem to remember that between 1.6 to 2 full-sized parking spaces per unit is a realistic standard. Los Angeles, for instance, requires 2 spaces per unit.

THIS IS A REPEAT POST TO TRY TO FORCE MV TO MANDATE REALISTIC AMOUNTS OF PARKING SPACES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

The article didn't mention adequate on-site parking to keep occupants from clogging local streets and making it difficult for other residents to park where they want. What has MV done to make sure that Summerhill must include REALISTIC, and not just pie-in-the-sky idealistic provisions for on-site parking? I seem to remember that between 1.6 to 2 full-sized parking spaces per unit is a realistic standard. Los Angeles, for instance, requires 2 spaces per unit. Just what is the MV City Council --- and its incredibly idealistic and ignorant Planning Commission --- telling Summerhill what on-site parking spaces they can avoid having to set aside RESPONSIBLY?