It's an interesting question to consider as to just how you divide the city up to classify areas as having over 55% non-white residents. The granularity of the segmenting can pre-dispose issues or eliminate them. The city is only 12 square miles in size or less than 1% of the land in Santa Clara County.

So suppose you make many squares out of the city and you then find that the squares representing 10% of the total number area all that have fewer than 55% non white residents. (I would really rather consider affluence level rather than none white ness, but whatever). Or maybe it's 20%. So then, are there really city owned properties in these areas?

For example, using large groupings, advocates often say that south of El Camino real is ap ortion of the city needing to home more affordable housing. But it's only 20% of the city, because they also say don't count areas too close to El Camino Real because you do have affordable housing (and transportation services) there. It seems to me that the only city owned parcels there are at Cuesta Park. It does't make sense to me to argue for reducing open space by using it for affordable housing. Already it appears that a vast majority of the users of Cuesta Park are what could be called the non affluent segment of the population. The place doesn't seem to be that far out of their home territory. Kiind of like cutting off services to the non affluent in order to help them. Having that open space to go to is a big benefit to living in Mountain View for a lot of non affluent residents.

I'd say that there are more smaller less used city properties actually located n the areas with a majority of non affluent residents already. Such properties are more suitable for housing than is Cuesta Park becuase you aren't taking away any services from non affluent people. It's not the rich people who benefit from Cuesta Park. The case could be made more easily for the golf course being more utilized by well off people.

Street parking only for thousands of MV residents? Really?

Just an Observation,

There is good reason to be skeptical. Of all things trying to reduce parking spaces per housing units is a disaster waiting to happen. In cities like Boston, you have people actually trying to kill each other for a parking space.

The reality is that in some cases, not just a "lot" but an entire section of a city needs to be redesigned, meaning roads, parking and other aspects. But we have not done that here, one of the SMARTEST cities in the U.S.

Especially when the high cost housing getting completed in 2023 is likely going to have much higher rates of vacancy or much lower revenues. The crazy idea of build it and they will come is over here.

There is a dramatic change in the profile of housing demand occurring, and no one is adjusting to it.