The city council should not take away any property rights from any owner. If a rental business wants to exit the rental business and sell his property to a developer for redevelopement, that is their right. This is a core value of this country where we value and protect property rights.

If council deems that those displaced people are due some forms of compensation for being displaced, then it should come out of the general fund where everyone contributes to it.

Then council will have to decide who and how much compensation will then be due people who lose their jobs and will have to move out of the area.

Would be nice if the writer of this editorial took some time to learn about basic economics and housing development. Other than that it’s a well written article

It sounds like it was written by Lenny Siegel.

We are fed up with this council dragging it's feet with starting an living in the streets ban.

We do not want it expanded like Siegel has wanted, we want it ended.

In response to Posted by Gladys you said:

“The city council should not take away any property rights from any owner. If a rental business wants to exit the rental business and sell his property to a developer for redevelopement, that is their right. This is a core value of this country where we value and protect property rights.”

Gladys, evidence that private property rights are NOT a core value is the fact that it can be taken at any time for only the land value under eminent domain. And eve a private business can TAKE another business or land away under the U.S. Supreme Court. You said:

“If council deems that those displaced people are due some forms of compensation for being displaced, then it should come out of the general fund where everyone contributes to it.”

It is not the responsibility of the public regarding displacement if it is done by NO FAULT of the tenant, you know this is true. That is why Tenant Relocation Assistance has been validated by court decisions. So you cannot expect the public to fund this activity. You said:

“Then council will have to decide who and how much compensation will then be due people who lose their jobs and will have to move out of the area.”

Yes they will but it will come from those who displace them by no fault of their own.

In response to Hard to believe you said:

“Would be nice if the writer of this editorial took some time to learn about basic economics and housing development. Other than that it’s a well written article”

The TERNER CENTER of Berkley (Web Link states:

“Affordable Housing Costs: The cost of building a 100-unit affordable project in California increased from $265,000 per unit in 2000 to almost $425,000 in 2016. per unit to build an apartment in the areas.”

But a recent report described that a new project in Mountain View is paying $700,000 per unit. This is very suspicious because if a project is overpriced by as little as 35% it satisfies the initial criteria for being likely to be mortgage fraud. The estimated markup of this project is 64%. The likelihood is that the builder will get the $49,000,000 loan, but then pocket $19,000,000 dollars and charge the tenants for the right to pocket that money.

In response to Gladys you said:

“It sounds like it was written by Lenny Siegel.

We are fed up with this council dragging it's feet with starting an living in the streets ban.

We do not want it expanded like Siegel has wanted, we want it ended.”

So, what are you trying to contribute to the discussion?

And by the way, I grew up next door to Concord Mass.

THe First battle of the revolutionary war.

THe principle of the revolutionary war was:

"Taxation without representation".

You are represented in the City Council by the owners of the properties. Thus that principle has been validated.

I have watched the battles of Concord and Lexington, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and have been a memeber of the "Sons of Liberty" heritage club.

So you cannot argue that my observation is not historically correct.

The Taxes were on stamps and tea. Any letter sent by the colonies and every cup of tea was taxed. The Colonies technically were "OWNED" by private interests in England. the "Colonists" were no longer citizens of England, and the land they lived on was "Privately" owned by England. Here is some information:

Massachusetts Bay Colony, one of the original English settlements in present-day Massachusetts, settled in 1630 by a group of about 1,000 Puritan refugees from England under Gov. John Winthrop and Deputy Gov. Thomas Dudley. IN 1629 THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY HAD OBTAINED FROM KING CHARLES I A CHARTER EMPOWERING THE COMPANY TO TRADE AND COLONIZE IN NEW ENGLAND BETWEEN THE CHARLES AND MERRIMACK RIVERS. The grant was similar to that of the Virginia Company in 1609, THE PATENTEES BEING JOINT PROPRIETORS WITH RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND GOVERNMENT. THE INTENTION OF THE CROWN WAS EVIDENTLY TO CREATE MERELY A COMMERCIAL COMPANY WITH WHAT, IN MODERN PARLANCE, WOULD BE CALLED STOCKHOLDERS, OFFICERS, AND DIRECTORS. BY A SHREWD AND LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE MOVE, HOWEVER, THE PATENTEES DECIDED TO TRANSFER THE MANAGEMENT AND THE CHARTER ITSELF TO MASSACHUSETTS. By this move, they not only paved the way for local management, but they established the assumption that the charter for a commercial company was in reality a political constitution for a new government with only indefinable dependence upon the imperial one in England. Among the communities that the Puritans established were Boston, Charlestown, Dorchester, Medford, Watertown, Roxbury, and Lynn.”

Management did not mean government. It was nothing but a business and nothing more.

So if the U.S. was born to protect private property interests, the fight would be that the Americans were violating Privatee Property rights in the revolution. This is proof that you made a factually false claim.

This editorial shows how out of touch these people are at the Voice.

They do not reflect or represent the people who actually live here, and are fed up with these RV's and all the tax payer money that has already been spent on this.

Way to go Voice!

P.S
You should really think about giving back that excellence award in journalism you got recently.

Time for Atherton to do something about housing.

In response to Joe you said:

“This editorial shows how out of touch these people are at the Voice. “

In what way? Please provide us with some kind of information that justifies that comment? Do you have any ideas to improve the situation? You said:

“They do not reflect or represent the people who actually live here, and are fed up with these RV's and all the tax payer money that has already been spent on this.”

My information here will solve the problem without any “TAXES” for example:

Google made a profit of about $40 Billion dollars in 2018. Why should any public funds be used to encourage them opening a new location?

Facebook made a profit of about $22 Billion dollars in 2018, Why should any public funds be used to encourage them opening a new location?

Apple made a profit of about nearly $60 Billion, Why should any public funds be used to encourage them opening a new location?

Intel made a profit of about $20 Billion. Why should any public funds be used to encourage them opening a new location?

The sum total profit of these alone are $142 Billion dollars. THIS IS PROFIT. AFTER TAXES.

If these groups are good corporate citizens, why not take 5% of that profit and donate it to build the housing that is lacking in the area? That would be an annual $7.1 Billion. Now lets say it costs $360,000 to build an apartment unit in the area based on the TERNER CENTER report, that would fund 19,722 units of housing annually.

It is reported that there is a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County of 58,870 units.

If that was done the economic equilibrium could be safely accomplished in 5 years.

Such an increase would result in the rent reductions because of the greatly increased inventory. This is not even "Rent Control"

Why can't this happen? You said:

“Way to go Voice!

P.S

You should really think about giving back that excellence award in journalism you got recently.”

Again, do you have anything other than criticism to contribute? We need to find answers. If your attitude is clear, you are instead of putting a hand on the leak in the boat, you want to kill all the rest of the people on the boat. Is this a reasonable approach?

In response to John you said:

“Time for Atherton to do something about housing.”

Who or what is Atherton?

Atherton, CA
Population 2010 6,914
Estimated 2017 7,238
+324
Density 1,438.97/sq mi

Mountain View CA
Population 2010 74,066
Estimated 2017 81,438
+7372
Density 6,000/sq mi

I can't belief that this is being discussed so cavaleirly here. So many peoples are having so muCH hard time doing the right thing that it make me so sad when I go thru the drive thru at the el camino taco bell and find that there are no peoples near the valley hospital when they need to be only there

In response to John:

I understand your observation, that Atherton experienced a .6% population increase per year an Mountain View experienced a 1.4% population per year.

But let’s look at job growth comparisons. Atherton has seen a 6.19% increase in employment in 2016-17 with 2,850 jobs. Mountain View has seen a 2.79% increase in employment with 46,400 jobs.

The job count increase in Atherton is 180 jobs in that year, in Mountain View it was 1293 jobs.

So you propose we outsource homes to Atherton. It is 12.5 miles away. That stretch of 101 is notorious to take 30 minutes to drive 12.5 miles a speed of 25 mile an hour. If we outsource the housing you the most generous traffic impact will be 2 persons for every car which adds 644 more cars on the road to the already strained roads of the bay highways.

The poverty rate in Atherton is 3.54% so there are 254 people in Atherton in statistical poverty whereas the poverty rate in Mountain View is 7.87% so there are there are 6,300 in Mountain View in statistical poverty.

It looks like Atherton is doing a better job doesn’t it? But you really cannot expect outsourcing housing will improve our poverty in Mountain View, it is likely to make it worse.

Gee, when I voted for rent control a couple of years ago I thought these problems would be solved. You mean that didn’t work?