For the record, this project was not subject to a 25% affordable housing requirement, and none of the ownership units were proposed to be affordable. 15% of the units were required to be below-market-rate, and all of the units were in the rental component of the project. The below-market-rate requirement is described in the staff report, which is available here: Web Link

Lucas Ramirez
Greater San Antonio Area

Another casualty of a misguided meddling city council. The city should be seeking how to create more housing of all types rather than trying to control the market.

In response to Dan Wylonis you wrote:

“Another casualty of a misguided meddling city council. The city should be seeking how to create more housing of all types rather than trying to control the market.”

WOWO, that is a switch, you always promoted that only the housing projects that resulted in the highest prices was to be built in the City. True you wanted affordable housing to only be built by the City or the Government only. The reality is that the California Association or Realtors and the California Apartment Association has “USED” the city Council to build ONLY the highest “quality” and the highest “priced” housing in the city.

Yes, the reality is that COVID and AB5 is pausing if not killing all of the projects that were “green lighted” by the city. The city believed in FALSE promises and information regarding the property values in Mountain View.

The Commercial Real Estate market is about go through a major correction no matter what.

Here is a great video talking about this problem called “NYC commercial mortgage backed securities are going to crash” found here (Web Link

The reality is that both Residential and Commercial Real Estate vacancies are eventually going to force a collapse in these securities.

And unfortunately, a lot of pensions have investments in this area, and most local and state taxes are dependent on them.

OMG if you think things are bad now?

Ah - just SUNSET @ SHORELINE.

Sunset (close) the 1969 special redevelopment district that siphons away Millions of School Tax general property tax revenue PER YEAR. Yes - not just (the temporarily) Share Shoreline (tax revenue) but eliminate the "quasi Redevelopment" agency that causes the MVWSD such a large yearly revenue tax "diversion" into the City coffers. I still hate "stomaching the idea" that a special state law allows this in Perpetuity - when for instance all the property tax revenue from the old Downtown (Castro St.) RDA is now going into the schools General Fund budgets as it should! Sorry - this is a rather obscure and wonkish tax issue!

link to Santa Clara County Tax Rates and Information 2019-2020 / see page G-3
$9,943,075.83 tax increment diversion total (MVWSD, a fraction is returned by the JPA)

Web Link

Or page H-9. :)