too bad - as a son of union people (Teamsters and Retail Clerks) I fully understand the problem of reasonable wages (+ benefits). As a school board member - I always found the local MVW local fairly reasonable to deal with [hats off to Jonathan, their former local president]. But what happens when the union cost of "Promote the General Welfare" starts to make public benefit policy impossible to implement? I have a bit of a hard time, myself, from having construction union 'regionals' contributing thousands per trade to school bond campaign spending. [comming up, MVWSDs March Bond / like 2012's Bond Measure]

I see why the Council got so tied up!

"Mountain View's public housing subsidies triggered prevailing wage rules, making the project financially infeasible." So the unions strong-armed the city and state into adding this unworkable language into the law books in order to benefit the unions. And then the city and state are SHOCKED that developers are resisting building housing and choose to add more office space.

If you want more of something, you subsidize it. If you want less of something, you tax it.

This is not as much about wages as it is about rent control. While rent control was passed in good faith, it is driving out the middle class landlords with (old buildings) out of business. Prometheus and such will raze those old affordable housing and build new luxury (unaffordable) appartments, leaving no space for socioeconomically disadvantage citizens. Rent control has totally opposite impact on low income tenants. I feel for those people who lived frugal life and paid mortgage all life to be able to retire on their little rental building. Their plan fell on it's face.

This has notjing to do with rent control and points to city council's lack of leadership. Agreeing to a mere five units while not knowing the fate of Mariposa apartments is irresponsible. City attorney needs to wake up and think about these issues ahead of time. Sigh and ugh. Nelson can u pls just move to Idaho?

Gulp, doesn't look like a win win situation at all. The same guy who told the school district to do a better job and that he expected more from them, doesn't even know how his own 2013 ordinance affects development projects approved by him and the council . . . YIKES!

Low income housing,
Public Housing,

Is NOT the job or responsibility of any private individual.

If you say that it is important to have those, then it is the Governments job to raise the money, buy/build those properties, and manage them.


Those of you who say it is about greed, then please tell me why do you not go after the banks?, the ones that people need to go, to borrow money to build/buy these properties.

No project that does not make a profit, according to the bank, will not get any money to buy/build these projects.

Mark,

your point is:

> Low income housing,
> Public Housing,

> Is NOT the job or responsibility of any private individual.

Certainly. However, any jurisdiction is allowed to assess community impact fees. These can take the form of requiring sewer main upgrades, school district funding, park land, etc.

Below market rate housing requirements is merely a reasonable way for a developer to pay for the community impact their highend apartments or office project is making on mountain view.

Why is the city considering investing in a hovel and money pit of a decrepit old apartment building? It makes no sense other than a few council members wanting to feel good. Is showing a guy sipping coffee on his couch in his tiny studio meant to imply this is the best and most economically feasible solution? Come take a picture of me watching TV in my shorts and then tell me what the city is going to do to ensure I can live in my home forever. Who thinks like that? It's just plain unrealistic.

You said,
"Certainly. However, any jurisdiction is allowed to assess community impact fees. These can take the form of requiring sewer main upgrades, school district funding, park land, etc.

Below market rate housing requirements is merely a reasonable way for a developer to pay for the community impact their highend apartments or office project is making on mountain view"


The city has the right to have a developer pay for the impacts that their development has against the community.

Example, when a developer comes in and razes a 25 unit apt. building and replaces it with 20 row homes, there is no impact on the water/sewer system or any added park or impact on schools. Yet the developer has to pay these fee's, which is unfair.

Then the city also says that the developer has to provide 25% Below Market Rate housing from this project. This is totally not fair and is not the job of any individual to provide this type of housing for the city good. That would be the job of the local government to pay for those subsidized housing, not a private individual.

Developers don't like using unionized labor as they have to pay prevailing wages. Using a large force off undocumented labor is good for the bottom line. Though well meaning, the City Council's attempt to fight market forces is failing. What we need is high speed transportation in/out of Silicon Valley. If a worker living in Tracy can make it to Palo Alto in 1hr via train then it would be good for many.

Please spend these public funds incentivizing businesses and employees to take their operations and livelihoods elsewhere--like out of state! It is the fastest way to solve the housing issue CA faces. No feasible amount of government involvement in the housing sector will ever solve the shortage issue. There. are. too. many. people. trying. to. live. in. the. Bay. Area. Period. Full stop.

We need fewer people, not more housing!

@sfcanative

Are you volunteering to leave?

Fingers crossed...

I was born here, raised here, went to school here, raised a family here, provided multifamily housing for thousands of families over the past five decades . . . and you?

Wow, you want us to give you a prize because you were a landlord for 50 years? Ok, Boomer.

LOL just posted above. You all know him as the banned poster on this site.