Simply put:

The City assumed that these projects are REAL.

The counted the housing elements regarding reporting to the STATE regarding meeting housing quotas.

THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE

NOW we have a very critical shortage that is expanding.

ALL is LOST. What are WE GOING to DO? This ARTICLE spoiled the REST OF MY DAY.

It's a game by both players. Smart growth needs to happen and they didn't want to play nice. Now the city has to step in and walk its talk. If they don't, then they too are all blah, blah, blah.

Can someone point out a measurement to gauge the housing shortage, that showes how bad it is, so we can see when it began, how bad it is, and what progress is being made or not made?

Without a measurement there can be no progress, or visibility.

Rental Vacancy rate perhaps?

What should our target be?

In response to Measureable houseing shortage you said:

“Can someone point out a measurement to gauge the housing shortage, that showes how bad it is, so we can see when it began, how bad it is, and what progress is being made or not made?

Without a measurement there can be no progress, or visibility.”

Here is some real information from the Association of Bay Area Governments.

The 2007-2014 housing report stated that:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low housing of 571 but only had 237 which reached 42%, Low Income Housing 388 but only had 28 which reached 7%, Moderate Income housing of 488 but only had 4 which reached 1%, Above Moderate housing of 1,152 but had 2,387 or reached 207% of the needs.

Compare with current record:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low Income Housing of 814 but has only provided 120 which reached 15%, Low Income housing of 492 but has only provided 135 which reached 27%, Moderate income housing of 527 but provided no additional housing which reached 0%, and Above Moderate housing of 1,093 but has 2,004 which reached 183%.

The fact is the City of Mountain View is failing to provide adequate housing period, and it has been all the fault of the City Council. I am not playing favorites with my assessment.

Google is very well managed and I trust it to have oodles of "enlightened self-interest" --- and to realize that what is good for MV long-term also is good for Google long-term. SyWest is a two bit real estate player that wants to realize its short-term real-estate profits --- period. Google is a dominant Internet Marketing player that wants to maximize its long-term core competency growth and profits. Google should just "make SyWest an offer it can't refuse" and get them totally out of any future planning. Real estate people are "transactional", just like the Criminal & Insane Monster infesting OUR White House, NOT his.

William Hitchens:

I can only say this, you are naive to think that Google has Mountain View interests in mind.

THe whole idea is to maximize tax credits, allowances and direct financial assistance from public resources so that it can come out with the largest ROI on the project.

They have not proven any real intent to get anything done. They haven't yet picked up a shovel.

So here's an idea. The original joint proposal 1 a bonus 1.1 million square feet of added office space beyond with their already entitled to build on that land. So if they can agree on a plan just retract the bonus 1.1 million square feet of Office Space. I can't see any argument why if the plan falls through then they deserve the bonus.

basically that's about 6,600 added workers so you did an awful lot of new housing units like maybe three thousand to cancel that out none of their plans has ever talked about building 3000 housing units on that land. and there's also the base amount of movie theater comnercial and office space which is going to create demand. certainly don't let Google take that 1.1 million square feet of office space and build it on other land elsewhere in North Bayshore. That would just be ridiculous. This is a chance to fix a mistake and if they lose 500 units of the promised housing from Google I don't see any problem with that even if they lose a thousand of the promised units it's so much of a better offset to lose that bonus office space that they can afford to have less new housing units built.