Please make the financials for subsidized housing are clearly disclosed
* source of funds (Bonds, general fund, another tax)
* amount used to subsidize housing (per project and aggregate)
* disclose is a way that the average tax payer can find and understand
(means not tucking it away in a financial statement line item)
* How much would it cost each MV household to provide such subsidies?


Looks like City of MV *may* be providing different forms of housing.
* Below market housing for displaced people
* Parking areas for RVs
* Below market housing for school teacher and other employees

These costs should be disclosed before tax payers vote for these things.
Not like Measure V, where we only found out it was a $2.6 M program afterwards

One way to encourage more housing is to decrease the regulatory burden (time, fees) required to create new units.

The best way to discourage more housing is to impose additional regulations, taxes, restrictions, requirements, etc.

Since it's pretty clear that the city has been doing the later for a decade, maybe it's time to look at the alternative.

I'm confused about this sb330. With sb330, why would any developer want to rebuild an old apartment unit and re-rent it again at the same rent level? Is this just another incentive to tear down old apartment blocks and rebuild into more profitable million dollar townhomes?

Re: "could help keep the city's workforce from having to move out of the area"

The only thing that can keep the city's workforce from having to move out of the area is more housing.

Otherwise, the government is just deciding that certain parts of the workforce are worthy of staying, at the expense of other parts of the workforce that will have to move out of the area instead.

Similarly, we should implement price controls on single home sales. People should not be able to sell their home for more than they bought it for. We need to put a stop to these outrageous price increases and capital gain windfalls for people moving out of the area to less expensive places.

@ Progressive - it shows how worrisome your idea is that I cannot tell if you are seriously suggesting it or making a joke.

If it is the intention of the residents of Mountain View, to provide low income housing to those low income people, then we need to vote on it and say how to pay for it. Everyone needs to share that cost.

What I strongly object to, and I am offended by, is the notion that private individuals who owned these properties are being told that they are solely required to subsidize people in their rents, and to never be allowed to exit the rental business when a property is 70 years old.

Example, It is like the city is telling that you can never have a new car. If you own a 50 year old car, you have to constantly pay to rebuild it and can never scrape it, because being green means you can not increase your carbon foot print by buying a new car every 5 years.

San Francisco allows older apartment buildings, as individual units, to be sold as TIC, (tenants in common). I have 2 friends who purchased their first homes this way. It is the best and most affordable way for one to get into home ownership in our area.

I had emailed our council members earlier this year and asked why this is not happening here? I only received one reply back, from Council Member Kamei saying she will bring it up, but I never heard back from her.

My lamdlord is doing a "survey" about what tenants make. Is this part of a larger effort by local landlords to repeal rent control and for-cause eviction?

Castro elementary and Theuerkauf elementary are 65%+ low income schools; Crittenden middle is 56% low income.
Doesn’t look like low income families are misplaced.
I am not sure I understand.

Why is the City Council claiming it is an option to enforce a "No-Net-Loss" when it is in fact state law.

It is in fact the state law that the city cannot approve any more housing projects given that they must replace the ones already approved to be removed.

I find it amazing that the city beleives that they are not subject to the state laws.

If they choose to remove affordable units and not replace them with an equal amount, the city will be subject to a major lawsuit. The state law is:

TITLE 7. Section 65863 found here (Web Link

On top of this there are 2 new laws that require inclusionary price controls. I have discussed this before. These will count for both home owners and rentals.

I still find it difficult to understand how much the City Council is in denial regarding what they are required to do under the laws?

On the Tuesday November 12th City Council agenda is a staff recommendation to place two measures on the March 3 ballot: (1) the landlords' "sneaky repeal" of rent control Measure V and (2) amendnents to Measure V to be proposed by the City Council for the benefit of landlords.

Out-of-town landlords do not get a vote! If you don't live here, send your kids to school here, try to park your car here, you don't get a vote. If you don't like it, sell your property and stay out.

"As for developers, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330) bans any demolition of affordable or rent-controlled units unless the developer replaces all such units, allows tenants to stay in their homes until 6 months before construction begins, provides relocation assistance to tenants, and offers tenants a first right of return at an affordable rent." --National Law Review

Gosh, I so regret dumping my MV multifamily units owned for 50 years, snatched up by a reputable developer for redevelopment as rowhouses. Rather than dumping the required $2.5M in electrical, plumbing and seismic upgrades to the '60s era housing, and waiting 25 years to recover the cost through CSFRA's incredibly generous approach to capital improvement pass-throughs /s/, the land now sits scraped and ready for new homes to be built.

Government meddling in the private sector has proven, yet again, a profound lack of understanding and vision which inevitably produces the opposite result 99% of the time.

Glad I got out before the barn door closed. Good luck MV landlords . . .

The city council has placed on the March 3 ballot amendments to rent control (Measure V) including allowing the city council to replace rent control board members with out-of-town landlords. Maybe we should replace city council members with out-of-town chimpanzees.The San Francisco Zoo has some smart chimps.