Crisis: MV city staff "let's figure out a way to get it done." (Director Chen) OK that's the way most of us expect it to be done. Can Do and Do.
And yes "promote the general Welfare" does cost money. That is a purpose of this Republic, and it's symbol, the flag for which it stands.

Steven Nelson,

HERE HERE, I AGREE.

What is bad is that with the last 8 good years, the City would not act without someone else paying for it is the real problem.

And that the City has done nothing but bite back the Citizens when they wanted housing prices to be affordable.

To me, this City Corporation has no "public" interests. Only when we have a City Council that has no ties with private housing industries (real estate and rental properties), and are backed by only public interests like the citizens themselves, will we see that reform.

But that is just a fantasy, right?

Another horrible anti-market idea by the MV City council. $12.4M will be misspent and the results will be disappointing. And we will be told that they need more money to make it "really" work.

Instead, make MV more reasonable for developers to create all kinds of properties by streamlining and simplifying the permitting process.

In response to Dan Waylonis you said:

“
Another horrible anti-market idea by the MV City council. $12.4M will be misspent and the results will be disappointing. And we will be told that they need more money to make it "really" work.

Instead, make MV more reasonable for developers to create all kinds of properties by streamlining and simplifying the permitting process.”

Let me demonstrate how inaccurate you are, that in fact if the government doesn’t “force” the market to change it never provides the needs of “DIVERSE” housing. In the 2015-2023 report Mountain View had the following needs and permits granted from, the ABAG RHNA report found here (Web Link :

Mountain View NEEDS 814 new VERY LOW income housing units (0-50% AMI), it has permitted ZERO meeting 0% need. Mountain View NEEDS 492 new LOW income housing units (50-80% AMI), it has permitted 9 meeting 2% need. Mountain View NEEDS 527 new MODERATE income housing units (80-120% AMI), it has permitted ZERO meeting 0% need. Mountain View NEEDS 1,093 new ABOVE MODERATE income housing units (120% + AMI), it has permitted 237 meeting 22% need

Lets compare DIVERSITY of permits here, oh wait there is really none there are only ABOVE MODERATE housing units being built out of all the permits 237/(237+9) or 97% of all housing permits allowed by the City of Mountain View are NOT AFFORDABLE,

Another report found here (Web Link and (Web Link ) also provided this information:

As far as the Valley is concerned the DIVERSITY grade is this:

In 2007-2014 The Valley Achieved 24.8% of the VERY LOW Income need. in 2015- 2023 The Valley achieves 11% of the VERY LOW income Housing needs. In 2007-2014 The Valley Achieved 25.3% of the LOW Income need. In 2015-2023 The Valley achieves only 17% of the LOW income Housing needs. In 2007-2014 The Valley Achieved 21.9% of the MODERATE Income need. In 2015-2023 The Valley achieves only 20% of the MODERATE Housing needs. In 2007-2014 The Valley Achieved 129.5% of the ABOVE MODERATE Income need, In 20915-2023 The Valley has 122% of the ABOVE MODERATE Housing needs.

The REALITY is that the MARKET does not provide DIVERSE housing unless it is FORCED to do so. And the Cities and Counties are biased against real diversification because developers are allowed to not provide any DIVERSIFICATION by paying a “BMR” fee. The reality is that these projects are OVER DEVELOPING HIGH END UNITS.

You wonder why the State is pushing for blocking Affordable Housing destruction and more Inclusionary Housing standards and higher ones are coming?

@SG, although the above posting was aBoVe the one-page size that I usually read of yours - Thanks. It is very quantitatively descriptive. It is clear (though not-the-most-concise). And you make clear the public policy Community Values that you are trying to support and illustrate!