"All the council members have the moral obligation to explore and identify now what can be done"

Coming from a convicted criminal this is priceless. Mr. Lopez violated the human rights of homeowners, landowners and Mr Inks and has yet to apologize for his inhumane behavior. Doesn't he have a moral obligation to respect the human rights of all people?

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

They do like to exaggerate a bit don't they;)

The thing is, we don't even know who the homeless are. What do we do with people who cannot care for themselves like the addicted and mentally ill?
It will surely be a different plan and group than those who would deal with people simply down on their luck.

First lets identify WHO the homeless are and what the issue is. If the addicted and mentally ill don't want help will it be forced?

Before ANY plan can go forward, it MUST identify which homeless sub-group it will benefit. Start with the addicted and mentally ill as there is a bigger concern with public safety regarding those groups. What's the plan to help those folks? Include costs and where the funding will come from, and please don;t do a rubber stamp unthinking "Make Google pay for it" reply

Not so easy is it? It's super easy to say "We must help the homeless"
as if homelessness is simply one issue.

What a disgraceful rantings from a person who is on a 2 year probation, who tried to silence the political free speech of a city council candidate.
Link here,
Web Link

Council members should be warned about Job Lopez and take notice he is guilty as charged, and notice his tone on how he speaks towards the counci. IMHO, he should be banned from getting anywhere near where council members gather for meetings for your own safety.

Job Lopez, IMHO, has no moral high grounds to speak on this issue in our city. Why would the Voice even give him space to write this rant.

In the USA, a core difference that separates us from other countries is our property rights. A private property owner has legal rights, and people like JOB LOPEZ and LENNY SIEGEL only want to take away their rights and devalue their property without the property owner from being compensated for their loss.

Everything the city does to increase any and all fees on developers will only be passed onto the new buyers in an increased price on the sale price.

Council HAS TO respect and protect property owners rights!


We have FAR more displacement of people in our city when we have recessions. Why is there no outrage when employers have to lay of thousands of people, who will not be able to find new jobs and will then be forced to move out the area. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! DISPLACEMENT will happen again in far more numbers than what is going on with these few redevelopment properties.

I strongly support those private property owners who choose to go out of the rental business and to sell their property to who ever they want.

Unless the insatiable appetite of Bay Area cities for more and more employment, commercial office space, and development dollars isn't stopped, this "housing crisis" will never be solved. The problem isn't "greedy" landlords, it's greedy cities approving gargantuan corporate campuses touting civic pride and increased tax dollars while driving up land costs. The sad truth is there are simply too many people trying to live in the Bay Area. The jobs need to leave, the business expansions need to stop and the assault on Bay Area living needs to end by stopping commercial development.

And, yes, Mr. Lopez, Measure V has had everything to do with the loss of Mt. View's more affordable housing. Whether landlords have opted to "retire" or simply quit the rental business, it's all because of rent control and the value of the dirt under their aging properties. That's why I sold last year displacing over 100 Mt. View residents. Left unchecked, this affordable housing erosion in Mt. View is just getting started.

In fact new state law requires that no loss of affordable housing can be allowed by a City.

If removal of affordable housing takes place, within 6 months, the city must have a project approved to replace them.

New law effective 2019

TBM, with all due respect, you have an uncanny ability to misinterpret the law. You are confusing GP land designations with actual projects. Mountain View could rezone the entire city to allow 30-50 units per residential acre, satisfying the state law you reference here and elsewhere--for the next century. And not one home would need to be erected. There are cities in the Bay Area satisfying this "carbon credit" housing shell game by rezoning parking lots for future higher density housing. That satisfies the law. Not one dwelling needs to be built to satisfy the law.

The government can't force developers to build in an unfriendly, unprofitable and downright hostile industry. PAH just broke ground with great fanfare on 67 studios/jr. ones for low income residents in Redwood City. Price tag? $42,000,000. That's $625,000 per unit! It took years to get approved and financed, draining every agency's bank account and state bond money in the process. It's spitting in the ocean.

The problem in the Bay Area isn't housing units, it's people units. Want to see the housing problem solved? Get rid of the exploding population and return the Bay Area housing market to equilibrium. Building homes will never solve the problem. Incentivizing businesses to expand or relocate out of the Bay Area has my vote.

In response to The Successful Businessman you said:

“TBM, with all due respect, you have an uncanny ability to misinterpret the law. You are confusing GP land designations with actual projects. Mountain View could rezone the entire city to allow 30-50 units per residential acre, satisfying the state law you reference here and elsewhere--for the next century. And not one home would need to be erected. There are cities in the Bay Area satisfying this "carbon credit" housing shell game by rezoning parking lots for future higher density housing. That satisfies the law. Not one dwelling needs to be built to satisfy the law.”

My comment was not related to “carbon credits” it involves the following law:

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.”

Since the law does in fact state the following text:

“65863. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall ensure that its housing element inventory described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 or its housing element program to make sites available pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583 can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c). AT NO TIME, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (2) OF SUBDIVISION (C), SHALL A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY BY ADMINISTRATIVE, QUASI-JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE, OR OTHER ACTION PERMIT OR CAUSE ITS INVENTORY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS REMAINING UNMET SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED FOR LOWER AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.”

That would seem to apply directly to the City of Mountain View. Since this project is not in any way addressing the affordable housing unmet needs of the City. It also applies that:

(b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, REDUCE, OR REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR ANY PARCEL TO, OR ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL AT, A LOWER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF SUBDIVISION (G), UNLESS THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAKES WRITTEN FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) THE REDUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT.

(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL.”

The City has not even provided such information. The plan is completely lacking this requirement under the state laws. You simply do not address that this is specifically required from the City. It also went on to say:

(2) If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT OF ANY PARCEL WITH FEWER UNITS BY INCOME CATEGORY THAN IDENTIFIED IN THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THAT PARCEL, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY SHALL MAKE A WRITTEN FINDING SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT REMAINING SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 65583.2 AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65584. The finding shall include A QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMAINING UNMET NEED FOR THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED AT EACH INCOME LEVEL AND THE REMAINING CAPACITY OF SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. “

Again this was not provided by the City in any way. The City must document how the loss of the affordable housing units are to be replaced in the City in order to move forward. Without such allocation in a “parallel” project, this project is in violation of the state laws. It goes on to say:

“(c) (1) If a reduction in residential density for any parcel would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, THE JURISDICTION MAY REDUCE THE DENSITY ON THAT PARCEL IF IT IDENTIFIES SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL, ADEQUATE, AND AVAILABLE SITES WITH AN EQUAL OR GREATER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE JURISDICTION SO THAT THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY.”

The City has not even bothered to address this legal requirement as well. So the City is in further violation of the state laws. Unless the City again provides a “parallel” project that will replace the affordable units being eliminated by this new plan. It goes on to say:

“(2) If the approval of a development project results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel and the jurisdiction does not find that the remaining sites in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need by income level, THE JURISDICTION SHALL WITHIN 180 DAYS IDENTIFY AND MAKE AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL ADEQUATE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE JURISDICTION’S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEED BY INCOME LEVEL. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL AUTHORIZE A CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY TO DISAPPROVE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE BASIS THAT APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH.”

If the City does not provide replacement of the affordable housing units to be built in 6 months, the approval of this project is illegal. Of course the city has no plans moving forward to address the replacement of the lost affordable housing units. Thus the City will violate this provision of the law. It went on to say:

(d) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER LAW THAT MAY RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

(e) This section requires that a city, county, or city and county be solely responsible for compliance with this section, unless a project applicant requests in his or her initial application, as submitted, a density that would result in the remaining sites in the housing element not being adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. IN THAT CASE, THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY MAY REQUIRE THE PROJECT APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION. THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE APPLICATION BEING DEEMED COMPLETE OR BEING ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, COUNTY, OR CITY AND COUNTY.”

Yes that means that the City was given some latitude as to whether the plan will comply with the law. But a resident can and should take action in place of the City to ensure their 14th Amendment rights and California equal protection of the STATE laws are provided. In that case, the complaint should be filed with the STATE courts and NOT the County Courts. The County has a record of not enforcing state laws adequately, look at the TRO that was enforces regarding the CSFRA when later the court determined that there was no legal basis to challenge it and eventually revoked it. You also said:

“The government can't force developers to build in an unfriendly, unprofitable and downright hostile industry. PAH just broke ground with great fanfare on 67 studios/jr. ones for low income residents in Redwood City. Price tag? $42,000,000. That's $625,000 per unit! It took years to get approved and financed, draining every agency's bank account and state bond money in the process. It's spitting in the ocean.”

Yes you are right, but under this law, there is no way the City of Mountain View can continue to eliminate affordable housing units with replacing them. If they don’t the citizens who are displaced can sue the City for the cost of loss of the affordable housing units. That would bankrupt the City. And since the City can prevent any project moving forward unless affordable units are built. There will be a very quick halt of any new units in the City. You said:

“The problem in the Bay Area isn't housing units, it's people units. Want to see the housing problem solved? Get rid of the exploding population and return the Bay Area housing market to equilibrium. Building homes will never solve the problem. Incentivizing businesses to expand or relocate out of the Bay Area has my vote.”

You are correct in that approach, but it would result in a dramatic loss of real estate value in the same way as the building of increased housing units that would bring more inventory on board. Simply put, no matter what approach is used, significant loss of real estate value. This will also result in a serious loss of ROI regarding real estate or bringing on board more affordable units.

WOW, it is quiet

Mr. Lopez has a history of not taking responsibility for his own illegal/irresponsible actions while falsely claiming the high ground and telling others what they should do with their lives/property. In short it is never his fault. Not really surprising but people should open their eyes to what is going on around them, this guy is not worthy of our attention, why he keeps getting a platform makes no sense at all.

Web Link

In response to The Truth you said:

“Mr. Lopez has a history of not taking responsibility for his own illegal/irresponsible actions while falsely claiming the high ground and telling others what they should do with their lives/property.”

I myself feel that his action he plead guilty to are simply poor judgment at the very least. You said:

“In short it is never his fault. Not really surprising but people should open their eyes to what is going on around them, this guy is not worthy of our attention, why he keeps getting a platform makes no sense at all.”

However he does have a first amendment right still to express himself. Like you just did yourself. But you still are not addressing the new laws. The City is going to have to provide more affordable housing, because if not, the housing accountability laws will put financial responsibility for not doing so on the city.

Displaced tenants will be able to in effect be required to be paid indefinitely until the City provides the numbers of affordable housing to meet the regional needs. The City will have to make a choice, either provide financial payments directly to tenants that do not live in Mountain View anymore, or finally not accept any plans to remove said affordable units without them being replaced in the plan.