Just An Observation,

I was warning about this for years. The facts that the City didn't PROACTIVELY take measures to provide affordable housing since 2007 when I moved here was just because the city thought it was a "TECH" city and only needed to provide housing for the wealthy. The 93 octane gas station exclusivity rule.

Now Meta , Twitter, Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, are going to divest from this City. And this city has attempted to engineer low income people out. So the city has no one to market to at this time.

If the City had acted prior to 2010 to be prepared for this, it would be just business as usual. But in reality the city is going to be a TECH ghost town by the end on 2030. Unless it makes big changes now.

So this action was avoidable, the reality is that now it inevitable.

WITHHOLDING funding as an incentive to decrease homelessness?

This makes as much sense as starving schools of funding in order to increase student achievement.

I thought elected representatives were supposed to work to find solutions to important problems. All that Newsom is doing is playing the blame game, pointing the finger at local officials in order to prevent voters from pointing the finger at him. As if local officials have all of the power and are simply refusing to use it. As the former mayor of San Francisco, Newsom should know better. Did homelessness in SF end on his watch? I think not.

Lust an observation,

Leslie, in 1995 the California Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association bought the laws Costa Hawkins, and Ellis Acts formally declaring that the STATE has NO RESPONSIBILITY to provide affordable housing. This was in fact a TRAP set by the CAR and the CAA because they had MUCH MORE POWER to control Counties and cities.

The only thing the Governor and the legislature can do without using money is issue UNFUNDED MANDATES and HOUSING REGULATIONS. They have done that.

The fact is the City of Mountain View was used by the CAR and the CAA ever since until new state laws and the CSFRA was enacted.

So when you try to say it is the STATES cost and responsibility to provide affordable housing. That is NOT TRUE. That is on the hands of PRIVATE developers and County and City Governments under STATE laws.

Now if you wanted to, you could get Costa Hawkins and Ellis Acts repealed and officially by legislation arrange STATE CONTROLLED housing. But in this time since that does not exist. Simply your claim of:

“All that Newsom is doing is playing the blame game, pointing the finger at local officials in order to prevent voters from pointing the finger at him. As if local officials have all of the power and are simply refusing to use it.”

Actually most Cities comply easily with state laws, but it looks like Mountain View is acting like Huntington Beach. In fact the City of Mountain Views City Inspector doesn’t even comply with CA Codes regarding inspections and building permits.

I agree with the Governor. IMO, cities such as Mountain View are moving at a snail’s pace when it comes to addressing those living on the streets — homeless and RV dwellers. I’m not sure that the current crop of candidates is going to change anything. We’ll have to wait and see…

JAFO, my view is that when politicians issue unfunded mandates to populations that do not have the necessary funds, it is kind of CHEESY. It is easy to proclaim that OTHER PEOPLE beside oneself need to spend $$$ for some cause.

I never said that it is the STATES cost and responsibility to provide affordable housing. Please don't put words into my mouth. My view is that it is wrong for state politicians to MANDATE that it is the responsibility of a local town, such as Mountain View, to pick up the tab to provide affordable housing. Who is supposed to provide the necessary funding? That question remains unanswered. In SF, they have a 1.5% income tax for both residents and non-residents who work in SF, Web Link Something like that could be imposed in Mountain View. I would be in favor of it, personally, but I suspect that many other persons here would object. People who think of themselves as being compassionate tend to feel differently when THEY themselves are asked to PITCH IN TO PAY for some good cause.

"Actually most Cities comply easily with state laws." Seriously? You think that most Cities just pick up the tab for whatever the governor tells them to? May I see your evidence for this claim? I don't believe that it is true. My lived experience is that people RARELY want to tax themselves in order to help others.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Lust an observation,

Leslie, I guess you really do not understand the way local politicians are REQUIRED to comply with State laws. I was a bit generous regarding my previous comment because I KNEW that City Governments swear an oath along with sign documents requiring compliance with the State Laws no matter if they disagree or not.

And again you are trying to put the responsibility of provide affordable housing on the PUBLIC when in 19995 the PRIVATE sector in getting Costa Hawkins and Ellis Acts passed it was designed to get rid of ALL PUBLIC HOUSING projects. In lieu of a “FALES PROMISE” that the PRIVATE sector were experts and cost efficiency and expertise. Thus the State legislated themselves out of the housing market.

And NOW you want the Counties and Cities to pick up the slack to in effect give free money to developers that do NOT provide affordable housing, just to keep only the 93 octane housing profits up. That is unrealistic, and is in effect STEALING money from the PUBLIC. That kind of Subsidies was sold by the Regan Administration and all state governments to claim that the market on its own can do the job. It is a PROVEN FAILURE for as much as 43 years.

Stop trying to misdirect the people from understanding where the REAL problem occurred here. It is time for the PRIVATE housing market to either PERFORM or DIE.

Given that the current trajectory is showing that 2008’s housing disaster was a minor league rehearsal, and 2022-2024 is going to make that look incredibly small.

The game is over and the facts are we cannot spend any money on cities that cannot perform either. If that means a city like Mountain View will go bankrupt, SO BE IT!! That money belongs to those that are outperforming Mountain View.

While I generally don’t subscribe to this endless bantering back-and-forth as it promotes “fence fighting,” for this one I’ll respond: to Leslie Bain: YES, I’ve written several generous checks to help RV dwellers.

JAFO, you have this way of paraphrasing me that is highly incorrect. I most certainly do not want to give free money to for-profit developers.

Are you aware that CA has one of the highest income tax rates in the nation, and is sitting on a record surplus of $97.5 Billion? Web Link And instead of spending that money on solutions to end homelessness, which is a complex problem, Newsom is essentially forcing local cities and towns to assume responsibility for the problem. It's clever politics. He wants to protect that surplus so he can brag about it nationally when he runs for president, instead of spending it on solutions to end homelessness. People should spend time thinking about that. Is he truly doing what is best for "we the people" or for his own career?

Over the course of my life, I earned a CA teaching credential, which requires one to actually pass tests on the Constitution. The founders relied on checks and balances, and separation of powers, to avoid having our infant government collapse into monarchy. That is historical truth. It pains me to see moderns being oblivious to such principles to the point of not objecting when naked power grabs are performed at the state level. A democracy is difficult to obtain, and easy to lose. Elected representatives are not little kings, they are supposed to pass laws to which the majority consents. If nobody even objects when politicians behave badly, what is to stop them? IMHO, we are on the road to being ruled by wealthy elites, if we are not already there.

Each of us is on our own journey. Your understanding about what is the REAL problem might be different than mine, and mine might be different from others. I post comments in an attempt to share information that others might find helpful to reach their own conclusions.

Johnny, it is one thing to freely donate to charity, and quite another to be forced to pay for programs as personally decreed by the Governor. I myself would love to see a 1.5% local income tax in MV such as the one in SF to help pay to end homelessness and provide more affordable housing, but I suspect that many others here would disagree. I would LOVE to be wrong about that. Maybe our City Council will impose such a tax in response to Newsom's decree, but I won't hold my breath.

Just an Observation,

Leslie, try to understand that Newsom and the state CANNOT violate any State Laws either. Meaning that because of the Costa Hawkins and Ellis Acts, his ability to improve the housing market is under that control. He is as you said, not a king.

If he were to take steps that violated these laws, surely the Cities and Counties and the CAR and CAA would sue him.

In effect Newsom cannot do anything like you are suggesting. He cannot actually force the local cities and counties to do anything unless it is legislated. Unfortunately the CAA and the CAR has successfully managed to keep the state out of this situation.

I recognize and admire teachers, but remember, you are not an expert in this field. I was forced to study business law, and with concentrations on human resources and IT impacts. Also I was required to take California Political Science classes.

In the end, if you want to transfer responsibility to the state, you need to get the state to codify it or go to court and have the courts order it.

Again you are trying to distract from the point, that you cannot be awarded funds if your history of performance is poor. This is the same method used for “No Child Left Behind” and other legislation. I am certain that the laws passed and enacted had provisions enabling this action.

I hope you are correct regarding surplus, because eventually it will be used to purchase toxic assets that have foreclosed because of the current overinflated property value corrections occurring now. Simply put, too many people bet on the wrong horses and the bargains will be great. I hope the funds can acquire these assets at at least $0.50 on the dollar.

Too bad those guys are going to lose their investments. But the state cannot bail them out either . In any event again, the City of Mountain Viewe is responsible for this problem, NOT the Governor.

Overlooked in the discussion here is the need to agree on definitions. What exactly is "affordable housing?" How many square feet of living space is minimal decent housing for each household? "Affordable" on what income? What percentage of income is "affordable" to spend on housing?

The answers to these and many other specific questions will all go into determining how much it's going to cost us -- whether it's done at the local or state level -- to supply "affordable housing" to everyone who wants some.

Just an observation,

Bob, good statement, lets make some definition of what should be considered adequate housing.

First, there must be of course appropriate amenities, i.e. a workable sized kitchen, bath, and electric and proper environmental controls.

Given that the internet is really now an essential component of life, especially regarding public notifications of safety, it would be expected that a certain amount of internet access would be part of the deal, but not a "luxury" level, a level that would provide essential services.

Now what I understand the general standard size of a Studio unit is about 400 Sq Ft, and a single bed should be about 500 Sq Ft.

Now there is the possibility of shared restrooms, but kitchens may not be shareable given things like food allergies.

But lets look at what is being and has been built in Mountain view the last 25 years, practically NO basic housing, nothing but premium housing with things like gyms, pools, party areas, and in many cases built in washers and dryers and other things.

This "STANDARDIZATION" of housing again is the example of only selling 93 octane gas in the city.

Given that the problem with mortgages likely going to reach 10% and the layoffs of tech workers in the area, as well as closing of local offices. It looks like this may unfortunately cause many homes and apartment complexes are about to go into either foreclosure or a fire sale. Hopefully this will result in as much as a 40% decline of prices for the long haul.

And if the properties do become liquidated, then the PRIVATE sector is NOT going to want them, because the long term values will never become as profitable as they were the recent ARTIFICIAL bubbles. With the so called state surplus, I agree that if the state can negotiate the purchases with at least a 50% discount, I am for the state buying them. But if not no way, there will be NO BAILOUTS NOW!!!